Revolution In The Head

On the other hand some times that can make his reviews interesting reading because usually they provoke a reaction of some sort.

Surely it was a bit dodgy that they got him to do the review? Hardly going to be the most impartial person. Hardly going to say it's better than 'Revolution in the Head'.

On a related thought, I was sort of startled when he passed away at how quick every writer was to say, "Oh, Ian had his problems — he was stuck in the 60's, he was this, he was that." Even putting aside the "speaking ill of the dead" factor and the fact that the guy had a very firm (and yes, contentious) idea of what constituted good and bad music, it seemed a little odd. I mean, as I read Revolution In The Head, it occurred to me that no other writer could've written it (its intro in particular).

McDonald isn't wrong to say that the music of the '60s had a real-time rhythmic acuity and that it preserved the human element in interesting opposition to technology. Or that the Beatles were sort of great magpies who used whatever was at hand. Or that the '60s were a dividing line between old-time liberalism and whatever Reagan and Thatcher were about. But he's totally got his head up his ass about the music that came after (and by extension the culture). For me, James Brown, Beefheart and many others are far more important for the music of the '60s than the Beatles--and in the Beatles vein I enjoy the Byrds, the Zombies, Love and Big Star far more than I do the Beatles. That there was a lot more going on than the Beatles, even in the world of pop, back then seems to me such a commonplace that I find it hard to get with McDonald. I hardly think "Day in the Life" is a supreme masterpiece of anything--give me anything off "Notorious Byrd Brothers" or "Odessey and Oracle" any day. Apparently he was pretty fucked up by thinking about all this--which pop music is supposed to teach you not to be, right?

And Eddie, while I don't think you can say this of JB, I think there's something to be said for influencign all those bands. Hell, even CB had his Beatle-esque moments...

where i depart is HOW they influenced other bands and the narrowing of options their influence produced. i mean the '70s, in white rock, was pretty much an attempt to reproduce the beatles by any means necessary. of course not everyone did this. but for me someone like james brown really got into something like the actual mechanics of music and how that works, whereas the beatles...they didn't. they represent, to me, stasis, whereas brown or any number of other people represent progress. sure, the beatles' "tomorrow never knows" is pretty cool...but what is that, really? a locked groove with sound effects. james brown's grooves didn't need no sound effects and weren't locked, better drummers for sure. it's a question of taste i suppose. ian mcdonald just seems a bit unhealthy to me regarding all this, and it's a shame.

yet jb -> kraftwerk/future of music as CIRCULARISATION of ABSENT CENTRE whereas fab4 -> SMiLE 2004 QED, viz. labial/linear < guttural/pragmatic.

dunno about beatles vs. beach boys, though. "good vibrations" > "i am walrus." "love you">"magical mystery tour." beach boys=frustrated pastoral, for real; beatles=false cosmopolitanism. james brown=letting constant motion/america make all frustrations and falsities completely irrevelant. beefheart=illusion of motion substituting for actual moving...

But understanding that his view of the current state of pop dovetailed nicely with what we presume (perhaps know) was his view of the current state of the world, I'm sensing that you reject his notion partly, if not largely, because of its broader implications -- that a world without vibrant, forward-looking pop might not be a world worth living in.

Maybe I'm wrong -- but I don't think his was the most radical of viewpoints, just one that devalued to some degree everything that has happened since -- ZTT, Eno, or latter-day Scott Walker to name a few. Still, it's not as if he deemed everything after that point "worthless" -- merely that he saw it as, as he put it in Revolution In the Head's final section, "Coming Down" from that era when "a sunny optimism permeated everything and possibilties seemed limitless." It's fair to argue that he never got over it. But he was hardly the only pop writer to face this dilemma -- just the only one to wear it so nakedly on his sleeve.

But again: I'm not sure he was "wrong," per se. There has clearly been no new paradigm shift since The Beatles. And regardless of pop's current thrust on society (where there's a pretty fair argument to be made that it seems more a celebration of celebrity than anything else), pop has inarguably ceased effecting mass cultural change the way it did in the Sixties. There's nothing wrong with admitting that or even mourning it a little -- these cultural movements have just become more insular and factional. Less universal. If anything, I would think recognizing that would allow those of us who write about music to move onward and examine what is happening today as it really is -- not what we wish it were.

What a loaded position. Obviously, the innovation in the Beatles' songwriting, playing, and arranging have nothing to do with "the mechanics of music."

"Sure, the beatles' "tomorrow never knows" is pretty cool...but what is that, really? a locked groove with sound effects. james brown's grooves didn't need no sound effects and weren't locked."

So what? You're talking about one Beatles song out of over two hundred. Also, the term "sound effects" is loaded. They were tape loops that McCartney created and he was interested in musique concrete.

"good vibrations" > "i am walrus." "love you">"magical mystery tour."

You're picking and choosing. Surely, you're not saying that for every beloved Beatles song or record there's a Beach Boys song or record that's better?

"beatles=false cosmopolitanism."

What in the world does this mean?

xpost

Oh, and while we're at it, "Tomorrow Never Knows" -- first hip hop tune?

because it plays with tape loops?

I'm probably out of my deep here, but maybe later innovations in pop music were not allowed to be "almost universal" because of the reputation of The Beatles as THE great innovators. I mean, they created a precedent in what areas are there to be innovative wich a lot of critics are still sticking to. After all, hip hop as pop has had innovative moments and it's being enjoyed by an almost universal audience.

Honest question, how great is the Beatles' influence outside of Western pop?

I still think that Hip Hop does mark a new "paradigm shift" which is what set me thinking about the Beatles' relationship to it, but I hadn't considered their re-positioning of the role of The Studio. You could trace obvious fore-runners: Joe Meek, Phil Spector, Ornette circa Free Jazz, but I think you're right that the Beatles did at least make this new relationship with the studio a key element of what pop became.

(Also your thoughts on depression were very illuminating, thanks.)

Since hip-hop eats everything up => all of recorded history.

With all the talk of the backing tracks it still leaves out the talking bits.

What makes it a paradigm shift to me isn't about any one aspect of Hip Hop itself - the way the music's constructed, the fact that it's predominantly spoken, its cultural roots or influence - so much as the fact that Hip Hop now informs the way that other musics are made or thought about or received in the same way that previous paradigm shifts - rock and roll, jazz - did.

and in ref to the beatles being conversational in their lyrics, not all rappers are actually so conversational. i wouldnt say conversationality became more or less the norm in hip hop until the mid 90s. someone like rakim was rarely conversational.

What a loaded position. Obviously, the innovation in the Beatles' songwriting, playing, and arranging have nothing to do with "the mechanics of music."

"Sure, the beatles' "tomorrow never knows" is pretty cool...but what is that, really? a locked groove with sound effects. james brown's grooves didn't need no sound effects and weren't locked."

So what? You're talking about one Beatles song out of over two hundred. Also, the term "sound effects" is loaded. They were tape loops that McCartney created and he was interested in musique concrete.

"good vibrations" > "i am walrus." "love you">"magical mystery tour."

You're picking and choosing. Surely, you're not saying that for every beloved Beatles song or record there's a Beach Boys song or record that's better?

"beatles=false cosmopolitanism."

What in the world does this mean?

When I say "mechanics of music" I mean that with Brown, hip-hop, you have people going thru the process of making music--laying things on a groove. Miles Davis' '70s music really helps clarify this. Whereas Beatles, sure, they made music but it was locked into a lot of "songwriting" and such that really got it out of the process that Brown and Davis exploited so well. The Beatles were locked down, always. I don't deny their moments of briliance, or anything, but it always seemed like such a dead end to me. As far as "false cosmopolitanism," see Glenn Gould's wacky but very interesting essay comparing Tony Hatch's songs for Pet Clark and the Beatles--he talks about their use of chromaticism as a crutch, and I think he has a point, so that's where I would put "false cosmopolitanism."

Are the tapeloops/sound effects really that essential to "Tomorrow Never Knows"? For that matter, are the sounds Eno uses on a lot of his stuff really that necessary to what a lot of his (rock) tunes are all about? I think it's open to question. As far as the Beach Boys go, I just think something like "Love You" is far more honest in its whimsy and detachment from the world than the Beatles' psychedelic shit, that's all. Of course I don't think there's a Beatles-Beach Boys strict correlation. I just happen to enjoy the Beach Boys far more than I do the Beatles.

Re-reading "Revolution" I sense a really frantic, despairing tone there...which again I think is a shame. McDonald obviously had a lot on the ball and it's sad to see someone get consumed by their dreams when there's plenty to dance to right now.

apparantly ian mc was working on a third revision when he died, can anyone shed ant light on this?

Bump.

Reading this now for the first time. Never been compelled to read a Beatles book before, and probably wont be compelled to read another.

A lot of the musicology is over my head ("and George landed on a mixolydian minor 7th" wtf) but still quite interesting the way he describes melodies as "recognisably Paul's" or whatever (and I can kind of tell most of the time, but to have your brain distinguish that the way a regular brain distinguishes red from green must be weird), and I seriously disagree with a lot of what he says, plus he comes across as a right tosser, but yeah, a very interesting approach, and far more valuable to me than "so and so had such and such for breakfast on the 19th and then through a vase at Paul".

i really liked this when i was 17 and it has a lot going for it. but yeah i've been reading bits of it again, and his general social analysis is a lot less convincing now than it was then.

i think you need both approaches really, the biographical and this. but he actually says less about the production than i'd thought – it's more about musicology yea – and (i think) treats stereo as default format.

it's still one of the better books about pop that i've read, but that that isn't saying much.

"and George landed on a mixolydian minor 7th" < - this is a made up example, right?

i didn't like this book bcz he doesn't rate 'i should have known better', but it's still fun to browse in

That is a made-up example, yes!

He does treat stereo as the default format, true.

"through a vase" oh my word early morning post.

"through my eyez......"

cuz (anyone who knows what they're talking about a bit better feel free to correct me here), the mixolydian mode does feature a note that's a minor 7th from the root, but you wouldn't really talk about hearing a 'mixolydian minor 7th'; & you also wouldn't talk about 'landing on' the interval --

i should try and remember to look at my copy of this this weekend; i wonder if i'll be able to follow the musical stuff a bit better these days

beatles books i've wanted to read: the hunter davies biog. (but only this one beat up copy i saw on holiday once); the lennon post-breakup interviews collection ... er, i think that's it.

Can't Buy Me Love is really really good. Hilariously mean to Yoko in parts.

its written so stuffily. and half the time - for all the praise critics, who prob just love it cos they see it as the beatles' music being examined like art/classical etc , give it - he just seems to be being opinionated than giving real firm musical analysis on the songs. not that i mind the background and info on the recording process/sessions on songs like strawberry fields, but its all a bit dryly written.

With Helter Skelter he pretty much just says "this is boorish wank", except he takes a page to be very dull about saying it.

nah he's right. that song is embarrassing. but re-reading the 'white album' sections the other day i did want something a bit different, more biographical/forensic, and the rigid song-by-song structure becomes unwieldy by that stage in their career, when they go away and return to songs after a few weeks or months or whatever.

also, his whole tone is almost affectedly dry/academic/stuffy, as if hes really trying to make sure he veils any enjoyment for his subject.

Helter Skelter's great fun!

x-post; yes, he doesn't seem as if he enjoys the music he's writing about much.

what are the best beatles books? is that white album book any good? ive ordered the hunter davies one - looking forward to that one.

Wasn't there some kind of definite turn in guy's life where he suddenly decided he hated fun, developed boorish/stuffy tendencies? Or have I invented that?

Like I said, the Can't Buy Me Love book is really good. 64p new on Amazon UK!

hunter davies is oppressively cheery and shallow in my experience. idk, i-mac is a bit of a gloomy soul when talking about post-67 beatles, but is it any wonder? believe me, most academics and para-academics are much worse writers.

what about the para-troopers?

I keep this in the loo, it's a great toilet book.

I've read a ridiculous number of Beatles books, and Can't Buy Me Love is my favorite.

I've been trying to decide on a bio, since obsession with remasters is showing no signs of abating.

Can't Buy Me Love looks pretty intriguing. I read Mikal Gilmore's piece in the last RS about the beatles breakup, and I kind of wish HE would write a book about them. Learned all kinds of stuff about them that I didn't know...like that Paul helped mediate with John and Yoko when they separated in 74? I'm really interested in 'what went on'...but I don't want it to be gossipy hearsay. Then again, I've never read a TON about them so maybe that kind of stuff is common knowledge?

I liked Magic Circles alot. It is structured around the Beatles' relationship to their audience and is really good on illuminating the creepy, dark aspects, i.e. Manson and the White Album. Published by Harvard U Press but not theory, more academic lite...worth reading

i don't think macdonald's style is "academic" at all. i think there's a lot of real enthusiasm for the music conveyed in the book, although macdonald's gloominess (which can easily be misread as cynicism) clouds it over a bit. and there are a lot of critical misfires in it -- his blaming "postmodernism" for the manson murders, claiming lennon deliberately sabotaged "the long and winding road" by playing deliberately badly, etc. still, he's right more often than he's wrong.

my wife says the bob spitz biography is pretty good.

I hadn't seen that Spitz one...that looks like it might be up my alley. I read a bio wayyyyy back in high school, but all I remember of that was John Lennon's mum dying in the car crash, I'll be buggered if I retained anything else from it.

Reading the Emerick/Martin thread & the Ken Scott response to Emerick's book, it really bugs me that there's so many agendas when people are 'telling' their stories about the Beatles. I guess it's the same with anything but it's fucking annoying for anyone who just wants to know more about that period of time, instead of wading through nine thousand egos.

okay tl;dr but should i read this y/n?

One of my favorite chapters in Can't Buy Me Love disussing Beatlemania:

What the British nation witnessed with growing amazement during the fall of 1963 was the expressive world of its adolescent girls, which had formerly been confined to the privacy of small groups and the solitude of individual imaginations, spilling out into the spaces of public life. "Bedroom culture" had embraced an active principle and taken noisily to the streets. Having reached critical mass, the response to the Beatles and their music provided a socially and emotionally secure environment for the expression of female assertiveness, female aggression, female sexuality, and female solidarity.
Screaming set a lofty standard of participation. It was emphatic. It was physically and emotionally cathartic. And it soon dawned on these girls that there was no effective way for anyone to stop it. The police reacted with confusion and embarrassment. The girls had stumbled onto a brilliant tactical gambit. There, inside a frenetic, shrieking mass of Beatlemaniacs, the voice of adult authority was utterly still.

Screaming as 'brilliant tactical gambit'. Love it!!

I always thought it stood more for 'omg I don't know what an orgasm is yet so I'm going to scream because I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH ME OMG THEY'RE HOTTTTT!!!" or something. But gambit works.

Ha ha! Yeah, OK maybe that dude's reading a bit too much into it...

It's a nice offshoot result. And that para does actually make want to delve more into the book. However...he may be crediting those young teen girls with a little more control than they actually had. If I was standing in the same room as 'Hard Days Night' era John Lennon/Paul McCartney/George Harrison I too would scream my hat off also. Just saying.

I loved the bits that focused on the girls in the Maysles(?) brothers' film - how a whole instant sort-of society sprang up among them - excited girls, gobby girls, submissive girls, pioneers & leaders - with the Beatles themselves as a kind of absence at the centre because, while they were the excuse for the frenzy, it wasn't really about them, it was all about the girls themselves. It was quite funny when there were scenes later with slightly older or younger girls, totally unintimidated and basically bossing the boys around. I imagine the screamers might've been equally assertive if they'd only got hold of them.

Yes! that girl who showed up with the donuts or whatever, totally SHUNNED by mainstays. it was like a nature documentary. or a very interesting version of Real Housewives. And then showing her with her peers and they're all, "Well did you even TRY to give them to them?" Lol!

mcdonald is so hilariously wrong about all the beatles things i like haha

viz:
- complaining about Paul's bass-playing being "overimprovisatory" etc
- paul "restricted to the adolescent appeal of pop while george and john head for the adult territory of rock" (paraphrase)
- happy to not notice e.g. the tape effect sections in 'only a northern song' or any other interesting surplus that doesn't fit whatever thesis he's pushing at the time

I think maybe btw what people are responding to as "academic" is better thought of as "schoolmasterish": particularly with Harrison a lot of the time it's like "Solid effort but George again just not the most clever lad in his form" stuff

im reading 'can't buy me love' and it is *literally* unputdownable.

Long before "Revolution in the Head" you had...

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/82/36/f243b2c008a04477cc396010.L._SL500_AA240_.jpg

... which was hilariously dismissive of George, in general, and everyone's solo career except Ringo's.

ohhh i used to have the Stones equiv, really gd

I studied both the Beatles and Stones versions of that book very carefully back in the 70s but now all I can remember is the sentence "Schmaltz reared its ugly head again" in reference to either "Yesterday" or "Eleanor Rigby."

Honestly, George's solo career is savaged unmercifully

You're probably not allowed to write books that critical of the Beatles anymore

You should read that Geoff Emerick book.

But wait, I thought you didn't like the Beatles? Why did you bother to read that book?

From what I can tell Geoff Emerick doesn't like The Beatles either...just Paul :)