Concert review
The White Album Concert
Chris Cheney, Phil Jamieson,
Josh Pyke, Tim Rogers
Adelaide Entertainment Centre
Happy to admit that I went along to this concert — a show by four Australian musicians doing the entire Beatles’ White Album — with some misgivings. How would they walk the line between reproduction and interpretation? Would they give the album its due respect? Would such an idiosyncratic album hold up in its entirety on stage? Who was going to play Yoko?
The concert was pretty stunning. The band they put together for the show (see details here) was tight and talented, and the four main players — Pyke, Rogers, Jamieson and Cheney — divided up the songs between them in a way that made sense and that allowed each to bring to bear their own particular talents. None of which is to say the show was without its faults, but I doubt you could really walk out of there disappointed.
Apart from anything, it was interesting to see who showed up. It wasn’t, as I had presumed, just old-fart Beatles’ fans (moi) a bit curious about seeing a live version of one of rock’s seminal albums. A goodly proportion of the crowd were a generation younger and were obviously drawn by the four leads as much as they were by the material. In fact, you sometimes wondered if some of them knew what the songs were. If that sounds a tad generationally bitchy, well, it probably is, but then again, I’m right. But it was all good.
If you were one of the old farts in the audience (moi, did I mention?), one of the unofficial curators of the legacy, and were paying close attention to how they handled the songs themselves, not only would you have given a tick of approval on all levels, you would’ve been pleased to be reminded what a great album it was. Is.
Those guys (you know, the Beatles) were just great song writers and the strength of their songs shone through in this performance. Their melodic sense is simply breathtaking and it makes itself felt through all the estrangements and experimentations that marked this album’s conception and production. Whether it was a classic acoustic ballad like ‘Blackbird’ or a ball-tearing electric rocker like ‘Helter Skelter’, talent outs. And Pyke, Jamieson, Rogers and Cheney did the songs justice.
The only misgivings I had involved Tim Rogers. Yeah, he’s a funny guy, very entertaining blah, blah, blah, but he carried on a bit too much for this old fart’s liking. He obviously had his fans in the audience, people who thought his every movement and gesture was just hilarious, and if that’s what they came for, and if that’s who is was playing to, well, that’s fine, and I hope they all had a good time, but I could’ve lived without it.
Having said that, he did tend to take the less serious songs in the repertoire and so I guess you can’t blame him for hamming it up on that level. And, credit where it is due, he did manage to bring — even through the antics — a degree of seriousness to his version of ‘Bungalow Bill’ that I wouldn’t have thought was there in the first place. It ain’t exactly my favourite song on the album, but Rogers gave it a rather dark, brooding complexion that I thought worked really well. So I thank him for that.
Josh Pyke had, in some ways, the most difficult gig of the night. It was one of the logisitic moments where the logic of the album doesn’t follow the logic of a concert. At least twice he had to come out after straightahead rock classics and follow up with acoustic ballads and he handled the transitions brilliantly. What’s more, his versions of ‘Blackbird’ and ‘Julia’ were close to perfect. He accompanied himself beautifully on guitar and his voice was great. A real highlight for me.
But at the end of the night, it was the rockier songs that made me think I’d spent my $125 per ticket wisely. They opened with ‘Back in the USSR’ and at different times swung through ‘While My Guitar Gently Weeps’, ‘Helter Skelter’, ‘Revolution’, ‘Yer Blues’ and the rest. Not only did these songs have the crowd up dancing, they seemed to be songs the band had the most fun doing.
Going in, I guess my favourite song on the album was probably ‘So Tired’ and Phil Jamieson did a good job with it. The trouble with it is, though, I realised, that it is too short to really build to anything in a live performance, so hearing it live almost counts as a disappointment. The same can’t be said for ‘While My Guitar Gently Weeps.’
Chris Cheney, take a bow. This was the showstopper of the night, not just for me but for the entire audience, I would reckon, judging by the standing ovation the song received. Utterly unforgettable it was, and I seriously considered giving it its own review. It was that good. He sung it like a man possessed, a great vocal, and let rip on the guitar with the sort of controlled fervour that marks all great rock guitaring and it didn’t let up from start to finish.
Of course, he wasn’t just standing in George’s shadow on this one — it’s a Harrison composition as I’m sure you all know. He was also standing in the shadow of Eric Clapton, George’s mate and one-time rock god, who contributed the solo on the original version. To place yourself in two such sun-blocking shadows as that and still manage to shine through with the sort of performance that has people jumping to their feet in appreciation is no small thing, and that’s exactly what Cheney managed to do. Yay him.
So look, I think they still have performances to do in Perth and Sydney, so if you get a chance, go along.
The only other thing I’ll reflect on is that it is kind of funny to see this album turned into such a nice, safe, middle class evening out (I’m not knocking it) when the source material and the original performers were once considered to be a threat to all that was decent in the world. It’s just a nice reminder of how fucked in the head self-appointed conservative protectors of the alleged status quo can be in their judgements of what is acceptable and what isn’t and why it is always worthwhile to ruffle their feathers. Whether rock music can still do that is a chat for another day.
ELSEWHERE: Here’s another review that takes a pretty similar view.
32 Comments
Tim Rogers has always seemed to me to be his own biggest fan. But I heard Josh Pyke’s version of “Blackbird” on the RN music show on Saturday morning, and it was as beautiful as you say.
Hey Jude was considered morally dangerous in 1968, really?
Yeah, interesting point, Zoe (about TR).
Not sure what you mean about Hey Jude, FEM. Just making the point that there was a time when the Beatles were considered a threat to all standards of decency and that albums like this were seen as part of the threat. Funny to see it and them as so utterly mainstream these days.
But by 68, Beatles seem pretty defanged to me, as a producer of moral panic. I mean, Beggar’s Banquet was released the same year and I can see why that would have caused a fuss. I know they had long hair in 1963 and the Bigger than Jesus thing, did you really have to lock up your daughters from Ringo Starr? Didn’t they get MBEs years before this?????
I would’ve thought 68 was a particularly problematic year for those who thought the world was going to hell in a handbasket. I think the Beatles were still lumped in with all that by conservatives, esp in the US. Still, I take your point (except the ref to Hey Jude). Maybe I just grew up in more conservative circles than you! I’m also presuming you didn’t see the concert? Be interested to hear what you thought if you did.
I … really don’t like the Beatles. But I’m not trolling. It’s just hard for me — and I wasn’t born in 68 so I defer to your assessment of the atmosphere — to see the Beatles that late as culturally threatening, even theoretically. I am happy to be wrong.
Yeah, lots of people don’t like the Beatles. I grew up amongst Stones fans (the influential kids just that bit older than me) so have heard the arguments forever. Me, I liked both and really couldn’t see how anyone could completely dismiss the talent of either. (It was a fun game though.) But look, there are plenty of songs by both bands I can’t stand. And music is generally about more than the music too, so everyone’s going to come to different conclusions. On the cultural stuff, I reckon you make a good point about the MBEs and thus their acceptability, though I’ll have to think about it a bit more. 1968 though: bad year for conservative values and still remember the unacceptability of the Beatles amongst adults, even then.
I only mentioned my view of the music as an explanation for why I’m not that interested in this show and have no view on it (although I’m not that interested in such shows of people I do like either. The Leonard Cohen one at the Opera House a few years back, a case in point. I wouldn’t go again, no matter the big names they got.) I have no arguments to offer on it.
Anyway, I hope some Beatles fans come along and leave thoughtful and enthusiastic comments too. Did you see Rex’s at Troppo?
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2009/08/04/the-white-album-concert-a-club-troppo-premium-gold-star-review/
Oh yeah, I did see Rex and meant to link. Will do that now. Thanks.
Nice review, Tim. I think you nailed it.
I was there with my wife, my 13 YO daughter and a work colleague. A few random thoughts.
1. I remember riding my racing bike with a mate about 10kms to buy the White Album when I was about 14. Still have it – with the original price tag of $16 and the original album art inserts (the big poster with the lyrics on the back, and the four 10 by 14 photos of the boys). Pulled it out during the week for a spin on the turntable for the benefit of my daughter. She knows a few of the songs from stuff like Across the Universe. Whatever the merits of the electronic age, vinyl still has a romance that can’t be beat. 13 yo thought it was way cool.
2. Loved the album then, less in love with it now. What often gets passed off as experimentation and innovation seems now to be slack. The only one who seems to have been really trying was Harrison. He still had something to prove. That said – and the live peformance reinforced it – talent does out. The White Album is what you get when genius larks about. The songs each have a hook – rhythmic, melodic, or arrangement – sometimes all three – and in such a diverse array of genres and styles that is unmatched on any other record I know. That’s its charm and its flaw.
3. I came away from the concert with renewed respect for McCartney’s vocal talent. His singing was always a bit affected – always the sense that he was an imitator – but watching the concert there were points when our Aussie lads were struggling to match Macca’s vocal range and phrasing. Admittedly, McCartney wrote the songs for himself, but they are actually melodically very difficult. Big intervals, odd key changes, and a raft of stylistic phrasings that he pulls off effortlessly in the recording.
4. That said, Josh Pike has been hiding his vocal talent under a bushel. He has a fine, strong voice that his own material doesn’t seem to fully capture.
5. Were the Beatles dangerous in 1968? I think they were beyond it. More like Gods. Mythical figures living in a stratosphere a level or two above the rest of rock and roll iconography, and to that extent less directly a source or insrpiration for creative opposition to Establishment. But they were still part of the counter-cultural movement; seen as fellow travellers. As it happens, I am reading Thomas Pynchon’s new novel, Inherent Vice, set in SoCal in 1970 or so, just after the Manson family have been arrested. The book charts the moment when the hippy movement lost its innocence. The vibe is there on the White Album – and not just because of the Manson association. Something has disintegrated; darkness lurks under a sheen of frivolity; drugs aren’t experienced any longer as an innocent creative force: they are beginning to destroy, partly because of the forces organising their supply, partly due to the government’s reaction. A non-violent Counter-culture is turning to violence; anti-establishment politics and crime become willing hand-maidens. The Beatles were on the edge of this (Lennon’s ambiguity is recorded in Revolution 1); and with Manson (and the Wearthermen, the SLA etc) the hippy thing has in the mind of the ‘straight world’ (Pynchon’s term) become less a moral threat than a direct social and political one. End the end, though, it probably depends on your perspective. Whether you saw the Beatles as dangerous depended on your own politics.
6. The MBE’s were in 1965. Before Revolver and Peppers.
7. I’ve never seen Tim Rogers live before and I thought he was a bit of a dufus.
always wondered why the white lp/the beatles were even considered interesting then..there was so much good rock music around why would one bother to listen to pop at all? and the beathlesd were always pop and they were always behind the 8 ball in the “culture” stakes as well..they were just bandwagon jumpers….and now we get whole concerts devoted to them? i await whole concerts devoted to recreating/covering..say quicksilver messenger services’ first lp..or even since we’re talking pop…kinda kinks.
Loved the gig. Rogers was being Rogers. I think half of that malarky he displayed was nerves – he’s the only rock star I’ve seen with the experience he’s had, that still seems to be a little “not himself” up on stage. All four lads offered their usual stage personas – he was no different. What seemed to be apparant was the bon homi between the four.
The stand out on the Chris Cheney solo on While my Guitar, was that he started the whole thing note perfect, then thrillingly started to work some of his own signature style with some hammering and slides as the piece progressed. It showed he had the trainspotter chops to do the note perfect stuff, but then the confidence to add his own interpretation once he had proven the first. It was some of the most thrilling guitar work I have seen.
The other thing was the ability to listen, actually listen, to the quality of the songs in a live format, without being dogged by watching a Beatles cover band. You knew this was their take on the songs done in the original style, so you could relax and not worry about the points of difference. I came away with a new appreciation for some songs I had previously written off as second rate (well, as second rate as a Beatles song could ever be). Sexy Sadie was just beautiful – I ded not realise how melodic it actually is. I have not listened to it again, as I have such a perfect memory of it now…
So – for those of you in Sydney, I think the gig is being repeated this week at The State theatre??? In the words of that old cowboy hat wearing St Kilda fan, “Do yourself a favour”. It realyy was a treat.
Methinks that Eric Sykes (2.59pm) and flopearedmule (12.27pm) have a perspective slightly warped by retrospection, which might be difficult for them to avoid (“wasn’t born in ’68″). They seem to be imagining all sorts of other “culturally shifting” musical events that actually hadn’t happened yet, or at least not gone mainstream. Sure, an awful lot of other stuff was happening but to imagine that the White Album was without massive impact is simply wrong. It is true that after Sergeant Peppers it was going to be almost impossible to exceed in global impact (no matter how undeserved the actual music of Peppers was), and thus the White Album did pick up some criticism that lingers to this day. The fact that it was not structured–actually a relief after the mannered Peppers, and seemed a mishmash of songs and individuality didn’t help. But by now, that seems a strength. This showed that despite the media madness, the Indian guru scene, the drugs and beginning of the inevitable end of the band, they could still pull out an astounding set of songs that still rose way above most popular music. As Pedro (point 5) implies, it is/was of its era. And Eric, stop trying to redefine/overanalyse what is or is not cool. It is deeply uncool.
Just to comment on FEMs appraisal of the Leonard Cohen show from the Opera House a couple of years ago – I’m a little mystified as to what does appeal – without getting all fringey whingey… The LC show gave us Teddy Thompson, Martha Wainwright, Beth Orton and others, in what I thought was a rather sublime interpretation of the songs. This I thought was the tremendous value in a show of this nature. The only chance you would usually get to hear the White Album (or others of this nature) would be through the note perfect posturings of a “tribute band”. The issue with that, is that as they generally try hard to be just like the original band, all it does is highlight the small things that are different, and you tend to fixate on that.
The great thing about the LC show, and the White album, was that they didn’t try to be just like the original. Nor did they “re-interpret” the songs in a modern fashion – they kept it pretty close to the original style. That meant you could relax, tune out of the stage stuff, and “get the music”. You didn’t need to worry about counter culture, violence, danger hippies, or anything else. It was a celebration of the music, and how an album, that fast disappearing art form, could have songs that were so different, but still coherent.
Doubtless there were albums from the 60′s that had more appeal to some of the readers of this article, but really, that’s not what this night was about. Eric – I suspect you will have a bit of a fruitless wait for your Quicksilver Messenger Service album concert at the Opera House, or even upstairs at the Sandringham, but I wish you luck anyway.
@ Michael I did not say it was not without massive impact.
@ John I enjoyed the Opera House gig, although am still irked years later by all the reading from the lyrics sheets they all did. Not on, in my book. The best I thought was Perla Battalla.
Anyway I do not wish to derail this further — I am glad the Beatles fans have a good night out to savour.
John Donovan: really good point about Cheney’s solo. Glad others got as big a kick out of it as I did. On a related point (to everyone): is it worth going back through The Living End backcatalogue and paying a bit more attention than I have in the past?
never mind all of that, what i want to know is who did “revolution 9″ and how the hell did they do it? (and i have heard an actual cover of it, too; just wondering how it was achieved here)
For crying out loud! How could anyone possibly discuss ‘mish-mash’, ‘structured albums’?, Albums per se do not have structure, as such. They may have a style, genre, perhaps an entire thematic concept. MUSIC is the structure, very structured, in fact.
By 1968 The Beatles had nothing left to prove. McCartney had proved time and time again that he was one of the greatest rock’n'roll singers of all time with his countless imitations of Little Richard, Lennon had proved he could imitate Carl Perkins, Chuck Berry, as did Ringo, Harrison proved to all he had a deeply spiritual side. By 1968 Harrison was acutely aware he was bereft of one particular guitar playing style, the blues. Enter Eric Clapton to assist on the White album.
Check out the similar musical structure of ‘While My Guitar Gently Weeps’ and Cream’s ‘White Room’. Compare the bridge in WMGGW and the musical bridge, same as the intro, on White Room. Funny thing, that. Similar blues style repeated on ‘I Want You’ on Abbey Road. Co-incidence? Even the solo bass riff on ‘I Want You’ smacks of Cream’s Jack Bruce’s playing style.
Please! By 1968 IMHO the Beatles were at their imitating best; the White Album’s successor was Abbey Road, another ‘imitatiting/tribute album, moreso than the White album. However, nobody could ever come close to imitating the Beatles, perhaps with the exception of the Beachboys (and vice-versa).
By 1968 the Beatles were taking the piss.
Have a good listen to the Beatles’ ‘Yer Blues’; compare to Hendrix’ ‘Voodoo Chile’. Bloody hell, even the singing of Lennon is in a similarly high octave/pitch as Hendrix on Voodoo Chile.
Hendrix’ Electric Ladyland album was recorded 1967/68 and released in September 1968. The White Album was released in November 1968. Another co-incidence?
However, when the Beatles are at their original songwriting best, almost nobody else comes close (difficult for me to admit at times as I was first and foremost, and still, an entirely devoted Rolling Stones fan).
The Beatles seem also to have two familiar traits. Some of their songs have intros similar to the music of Bach and perhaps Vivaldi; and, The Beatles never forget their English roots as ‘skiffle’ style features fleetingly over the years of their reign.
Any musician will never forget entirely a piece of music he has previously heard. Influences abound in great number.
Who does not like the Beatles? Sound like musical snobbery to me. Boy oh boy? How could any musician not possibly like the Beatles’ work.
Another point to make on the Beatles is that their early albums contained ‘cover’ songs; e.g. Mr. Postman, Roll Over Beethoven, Chains, Rock’n'Roll Music, Till There Was You, Long Tall Sally, Dizzy Miss Lizzy, Anna, A Taste Of Honey, Kansas City, and so on.
‘Hard Days Night’ (1964) was the first album which contained ‘no’ covers, and to the best of my recollection no other Beatles album from then contained a ‘cover’ song.
However, I again make the point that for the Beatles, by 1964 and beyond, imitation and influences had replaced cover songs. And what wonderful tunes evolved from those imitation/influences!
As for the Australian lads performing the White album I say well done. Abbey Road (and Dark Side Of The Moon) deserve same.
Gee Tim. This Beatles thing has me thinking. Did I say imitation?
Take a listen to Marvin Gaye’s (and others’) ‘I Heard It Through The Grapevine’; then listen to what I consider to be the Beatles’ perfect imitation of in ‘Come Together’.
Both have a very similar, distinctive intro, in minor key, vocals basically in similar if not same octave, chord progression thus: both Minor, major, to seventh; bridge, minor to major or seventh chord in both cases. Hmmm.
As for Flopearedmule, I wasn’t around in 1785, but I just love Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 21 in c major (K467 Elvira Madigan). Just sayin’.
Lol, sure, I don’t listen to any music from before I was born. That’s exactly what I said. You would think Crikey readers would have at least an average level of reading comprehension ability. Apparently not.
francesco…i am a musician. i don’t think the beatles are very good musicians altho they were/are quite good pop stylists. the notion that the beatles were ever “threatening” to anyone (except for the ..more pop than christ statement) bemuses me since the thing i remember about the white lp that was considered radical at the time was that it….had a white cover. the beatles were, in my humble view and i am aware its a minority view, always about showbiz. it takes a japanese/american fluxus artist to wake lennon up….
so i am sorry if i appear to be playing more kewl than skewl, that is not my intention michael j. rather, i am simply saying that…at the time…there was plenty of what i consider really challenging music around and none of it was beatles music. in my view.
so i am challenging the accepted mythology, which this concert tour maintains, that the beatleds music “changed the world of 20th century music” or something. it didn’t, it changed the pop charts a bit.
Hi Eric. I agree the Beatles did not ‘change the world of 20th century music’. In fact, the Beatles, as did other ‘pop’ artists, rode on the musical bandwagon created by the introduction of the pentatonic scale to ‘popular’ music; 12 bar blues based, true rock’n'roll, or, what Ry Cooder refers to as ‘three chords and the truth’. I guess we should thank WC Handy, accredited with ‘discovering’ the blues (not forgetting Handy’s successors, Bessie Smith, Robert Johnson, Willie Dixon, T-Bone Walker, Louis Jordan, Big Joe Turner, and Elvis, of course.
However, the Beatles, and perhaps the Beachboys, laid to rest the notion that popular music was primarily based upon the 2 minute romps of Pat Boone and Connie Francis (refer to songs She’s Leaving Home; A Day In The Life, Good Vibrations; etc.). The Beatles pushed the limit (although I will contend the Rolling Stones’ version of Willie Dixon’s ‘Little Red Rooster’ was absolutely groundbreaking pop material, ‘white boy sings black man’s blues’ so magnificently, now that’s radical; a John Mayall version of same would not have made the ‘pop’ charts).
Not sure that the Beatles were entirely about showbiz as they did not tour after 1965. I don’t recall saying that the Beatles were good musicians, (whatever your statement may imply), or that ‘good’ musicians necessarily reside in the halls of pop music (although after seeing Steely Dan live recently I’m more than certain that some capable musicians improve with age). I would say that they improved their musical chops greatly over the years. Who knows what they may have come up with had they remained together. I don’t believe the Beatles ‘threatened’ in any context.
The Club Troppo review linked to this blog has George Martin suggesting not all the tracks on the White album should have been included on that album, which I believe is clearly indicative that the Beatles were experimenting, pushing the envelope of the pop genre, again, almost at an end, and that they were truly imitating and taking the piss.
Tis rumoured in the early seventies that an acquaintance of Paul McCartney quipped to Paul thus: ‘if you recorded Mary Had A Little Lamb, it would go to No. 1 on the pop charts’. Not quite No. 1, but Paul did record a song entitled MHALL. John Mayall did not, Stevie Ray Vaughan did. Strange stuff.
Then again Eric, let us not attempt to debate such a generally subjective topic as to who is and who is not a ‘good’ musician. No point.
As to other ‘good’ bands existing around the time of the White album release, I say ‘so what’. Nothing new there.
My Dear Madam Flopear, as you have as yet not contributed anything remotely substantial to this debate, I do not see the need to respond.
Responding to say you won’t respond. Heh.
I was asking, in good faith, questions about the cultural positioning of the Beatles in 1968. I confessed my ignorance on the topic and said I would be happy to have my impression proved wrong. Tim made some useful comments on the issue, everyone else has just accused me of saying things I didn’t. How were the Beatles perceived in mainstream popular and political culture (note, not related to my opinion of, or the objective historical importance of, the music but what position they occupied vis a vis mainstream mores) at the time of the White Album? My intial comment about Hey Jude might have been a bit flippant but then again, not since it is from this time period and rather the opposite of something challenging to traditional moral values (beaten to the Grammy for Song of the Year that year by Little Green Apples!) But maybe I’m wrong about that. I have a better grip on the cultural history of the Stones, since I’m a fan, so I think about the Beatles in relation to that and wonder, on the public morality question, how they were perceived at that time.
If you have any thoughts on this issue I am happy to hear them and reconsider.
well i don’t think the beatles pushed any limits at all. i would suggest rather that they constantly affirmed the limits and consistantly worked within them. i agree its silly to debate what good means. i do not think that sir george saying some tracks should be left off in any way indicates anything. i don’t understand why you would think being about showbiz has got anything to do with touring or not. sir paul remains the absolute pits of showbiz….the last of the loveable mop tops…yuk, just the thought of all that showbiz pazzazz makes me feel ill, and it made me feel ill then. and again, its silly to play who came first, but for me the fact that the merry pranksters went to the beatles shea stadium gig and came away feeling equally ill has always given me hope for happiness…….
Hate to intervene, but can we keep the snark or whatever it is out of the comments?
My view (my memory) is that the Beatles were still seen as part of the counterculture and in 1968 that was still seen as very threatening to the sorts of conservatives I was talking about in the post. 68 was year zero in a lot of ways, with assassinations, riots, protests etc, plus the counterculture itself imploding. But really, my comments were meant more generally about the way what was once seen as threatening is subsumed by the mainstream or becomes mainstream.
AS to the Beatles as innovators, it just seems wrong to me to say they never had that role. They clearly did and it is equally clear that plenty of musicians at the time were inspired by what they were doing. They were a big part of the creative outburst of that time. Records do change after Revolver or Sgt Peppers. Maybe less so with the White Album, but it was still out there by most standards. Plenty books/biographies support this without me just asserting it.
Were they good musicians and songwriters? Again, I reckon the jury is in. I can easily see why people don’t like their music — as I say, the influential peer group around me were all Stones fans who hated the Beatles — but on some objective level, yes they wrote songs that people liked and they performed them well. Is there really any dispute about that?
Still, totally concur with Eric’s hatred of the sort of pizazz that surrounds particularly McCartney and have always been less than thrilled by his debt to music hall. Having said that, I must admit I’ve softened a bit towards him over the last year or so, not least bc of his latest solo album (as the Fireman). Basically, I just can’t get that heated about him one way or another, and maybe that says it all.
Anyway, interesting discussion all round, but let’s keep it nice.
No snark at all Tim. I respect fully the people’s comments posted on this subjective topic. I was not overly fond of the Beatles. The Rolling Stones were the ‘one/s’.
On the point of George Martin’s comments re track inclusion on the White Album, I believe it would be only natural to question why the heck a band would include ‘why don’t we do it in the road’ on any album. That rant is pure indulgence on the part of McCartney, displaying once more his ability in emulating the vocal style of Little Richard.
The Beatles were having a laugh at our expense. How influential were the Beatles to the possibilities in pop music?
I would say ‘very’. The Beatles set the standard for ‘pop’ albums.
Co-incidentally, in 1970, CCR released the highly regarded Cosmos Factory. Three tunes included on that album seem to follow a winning formula.
‘Looking out my back door’, mentions country great Buck Owens. The song is pure country bordering on bluegrass.
The Beatles recorded Act Naturally (I think on the Help album, will check), originally by Buck Owens.
No, CCR did not put Come Together on that album, however, they did record ‘I Heard It Through The Grapevine’. Another co-incidence?
Finally, in emulating the Beatles, CCR included a tune on Cosmos entitled ‘Travelling Band’, a take, I presume, of Little Richard, loud screeches and all, as Paul McCartney had done repeatedly in the past.
Interesting. More later.
“Beatles were still seen as part of the counterculture and in 1968 that was still seen as very threatening”..this is interesting..because at the time (67/68/69) i and my peers would never have seen the beatles as part of the counter culture at all…. quite the reverse, we saw them as part of the showbiz pop mainstream…parts of the conservative media i guess saw them as counter culture, but that was the conservative media and they remain way off track eh? we saw the revolver/peppers lps for example, as a very lame attempt by a pop group to try and make psychedelic music…..certainly the counter culture was seen by the mainstream as threatening, without a doubt, i would argue it still is…
anyhow i am quite prepared to accept that some people really like their music..i like the paperback writer riff and baby you’re a rich man..oh and “flying” from mystery tour..that’s it for me….great blog, thanks.
sorry to harp on..i’ll shut up soon but it just occurred to me that Zappa’s “We’re Only In It For the Money” came out at the beginning of 1968 and is a very significant piss take of the beatles. The Money lp cover is a beautifully twisted portrayal of the Peppers cover and the title says it all.
Great album (the Zappa) and great pisstake. But it wasn’t just a pisstake on the Beatles but the whole “movement”. But here’s what I reckon: the very fact that Zappa chose the Beatles in particular to pillory says something about their centrality and their position, at least amongst the previous generation (the older generation in charge), as representative of the sort of change I was originally talking about. (Zappa was all over them too, of course.)
Here’s the other thing (imho): Zappa is pissed, probably rightly so, that his innovations hadn’t received the same attention and kudos as the Beatles. And this is where I don’t think you can get away from the Beatles’ influence or centrality: to other innovators (like Zappa) they mightn’t have been anything like the cutting edge the mainstream held them up to be, but they nonetheless fulfilled that bridging role. That is, even if people argue they weren’t real innovators (which I don’t accept btw), they nonetheless bought innovations to a mass audience in a way no-one else did.
So in terms of actually changing things, or upsetting 60s conservative mores, I reckon you can argue that the mass popularity of the Beatles was more influential (and therefore more threatening) than what we might agree was the greater innovations and challenges of more marginal types like Zappa.
Anyway, I’m just chewing the fat on this, but I reckon there is something in it.
yup i’ll buy most of that except conservative mores are worse now than they were then..;-) and perhaps Zappa chose them because they were the epitome of everything that was insincere and superficial about the whole “movement”…
The Beatles White, a detailed post, 31 comments, a stoush, well, stoushette, and no mention of Happiness is a Warm Gun…
Lift yer game, Johnny Dunlop.