|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 20, 2008 9:09:11 GMT -5
I'd like to open this thread for your thoughts on the White Album's 40th anniversary.
Mine? I remember well getting the album (at Christmas that year). The White Album encompassed the best example how Christmas and the Beatles would often coincide. There was so much in that package (the albums, the posters, the pictures) that all one could do was marvel at it all ... next to playing it, I mean. It's funny how it seems to have gotten a better rep than it used to have. It is a great album, though, and I would challenge anyone who says it should be trimmed to one disc.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Nov 20, 2008 13:07:57 GMT -5
From my blog at CRF2:
My experience with The White Album began in 1972. I was 14 and a Beatle fan, although I didn't have many of their albums at that point. I think all I owned was HEY JUDE, the American compilation and MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR, plus a couple of singles. I had a sheet music book of Beatle songs, and forced the piano teacher to use it rather than standards or classical music.
So, in the summer of 1972, I was helping the step-father of a friend in his campaign for the Arkansas State Senate. I'd go stand in front of stores and hand out cards, helping folks with their packages and doors to their cars. On one Saturday, a large caravan of cars went canvassing an area, and in our car, there was an 8-track player. The tape in the player was THE BEATLES (which at the time, I didn't know was "the White Album") and the song that came on first was "Back In The USSR." The whole car seemed to be stunned by what we heard. As soon as it played through, we clicked it back to that song and played it again. Then we did it again when it played through; sometime we'd shift tracks to listen to the other songs, but whatever the first song was on tracks 2, 3 and 4 remain unplayed to this day!
So, I did what I could to find out where I could get that song. Before there was the Internet, it wasn't so easy, but somehow, I learned what I was looking for. I asked for it for Christmas that year, and even took my dad to the record racks in JC Penney's (yep, in 1972, Penney's carried albums, at least in the store in Fort Smith, Arkansas) to show him which one I wanted.
"You want me to pay $9.00 for a record?" he asked with obvious disgust.
"Yes," I said with obvious teenage enthusiasm, forgetting to point out it was a double record.
"If I buy that for you, you're not getting anything else." Obvious attempt at logic.
"That's fine," calling the bluff.
Or I thought it was a bluff. Turned out it wasn't. Except for some clothes, all I got that year was The White Album.
It was worth it.
JcS
|
|
|
Post by alltouttt on Nov 20, 2008 13:25:37 GMT -5
Yeah! Ask for that one too for Christmas in 1968 ...
But I couldn't wait until then so I unwrapped my present, took out the 2 records and put two old scraps instead ...
I must have done a pretty lousy job at putting the paper and ribbons back cause my mother found out and she was pretty mad for a day or two!
Can't believe it was 40 years ago!!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 20, 2008 14:39:22 GMT -5
I had seen the White Album at a friend of a friend's in the summer of 1976 and was mesmerized by the packaging(posters, gatefold, the plain white cover with B & W photos inside). We didn't even play the music but I knew I wanted it. I knew about the Manson connection which intrigued me.
I had just become a fan in September 1975 so I was only 13 when I first held the White Album and I didn't have the money to buy The Beatles' catalog all at once. It came painfully slow.
I finally got the White Album on October 31, 1976 as a birthday present. That was only 8 years after it was released but back then those 8 years seemed like a century! Just today Steve noted in his News Briefs that 1 was released 8 years ago and that seems like yesterday!
I was not disappointed. I still can remember the exact emotions of that first listen of The White Album on our family's RCA stereo. I already knew "Back In The USSR" from the "Blue Album" but I was sold forever upon hearing "Dear Prudence." "Revolution 9" scared the hell out of me.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Nov 20, 2008 17:01:19 GMT -5
The White Album remains probably my favourite Beatles album -- it's certainly the one with the greatest number of great songs (it should be since there are 30 to choose from).
I first heard it in 1990 on cassette! (Hangs head in shame over being born in the latter 1970s.)
I've always defended the double-album conceit, but for the first time in my life I've recently thought that maybe they shouldn't have done it. There is some unnecessary filler on the record, which is all very interesting and different, but does anyone really need to hear "Wild Honey Pie", "Revolution 9", "Long Long Long" or "Goodnight"?
So I think maybe they should have released "The White Album" first, with about 16 songs on it. This is conceivable -- The Rolling Stones put out an album around 1967 or so that was about 55 minutes long. Then, about 4-5 months later, they could have put out "The Black Album", with the remaining quality tracks plus a half-dozen new ones.
But in any case, I love this record!!!
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Nov 20, 2008 19:16:29 GMT -5
I actually love Long, Long ,Long and Goodnight
|
|
JMG
Very Clean
Posts: 412
|
Post by JMG on Nov 21, 2008 1:37:20 GMT -5
Late November, 1968. I rode my bike to The Giant Store to buy The White Album, for what turned out to be only the first time. The Giant Store was what you would call a modern-day Target Store or K-Mart, along those lines. It was in a rather small shopping center along with a Jewel grocery and Walgreen drug store. It's not there anymore, replaced a few years ago by condos and a medical center.
It was amazing opening the album for the first time, not only for the the music but also the poster with the lyrics on the back and the four giveaway color photos, very nicely done. As the years rolled by I wore out my first copy, to be replaced by a second LP copy followed by an 8-track tape followed by a cassette tape and finally by the CD release.
My original copy of The White Album has 'The Beatles' on the front cover in raised letters with the number 0613947. The replacement LP has 'The Beatles' in gray flat lettering with no numbers. The CD with gray lettering with the number 208082.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 21, 2008 6:24:02 GMT -5
I love The White Album, and it's perfect as an odd double-album, which was somewhat of a novelty back at the time, wasn't it? I agree with Steve in challenging those who say "it should have been a single album". I just never get that. That's part of what makes it stand out, and so different from the Beatles' other fine-tuned precision works.
If there is one single comment that Paul McCartney ever made where I think he summed something up perfectly, it would have to be his now-famous: “I think it’s a fine album. I’m not a great one for that ‘maybe it was too many.” What do you mean? It was great. It sold. It’s the bloody Beatles White Album. Shut up.”
Yes.
|
|
ChuckE
Very Clean
AlexE & RachelE, May '08
Posts: 77
|
Post by ChuckE on Nov 21, 2008 13:06:18 GMT -5
One testament to the greatness of the "White Album": we've all seen dozens of lists of people's 14-15 song abridged versions, but we may never see two that are exactly alike. If half the album really WAS dross, the abridged listings would have a lot more in common! That's what makes the "single-LP" White Album exercise so interesting; it's so difficult to edit down that far. NP: the Doors, "Soul Kitchen," The Doors
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Nov 21, 2008 20:57:37 GMT -5
I first played the White Album in 1977 or 1978. My brother had left the album behind when he got married (along with Sgt. Pepper - with an Apple label! ). I had just gotten into the Beatles. The album had the raised lettering "Beatles". I remember looking at it on my bed and one of my sisters coming in and saying, "Is that the Beatles White Album?". I remember looking at it and saying, "Well, it has 'The Beatles' on the cover, and it is white, so....." My sister had the "Rock and Roll Music" album which I, ahem, "borrowed" more than once, so I was already familiar with "Back in the U.S.S.R.", "Birthday", and "Helter Skelter". Also, "Obladi Oblada" got a lot of airplay at the time, so I was familiar with it as well. I had also heard "Good Night" previously (maybe as an "In Memoriam" montage on one of those award shows?) "Revolution #9" freaked me out! (Still does, to a degree! ) I still like the White Album overall - a veritable cornucopia of musical styles.
|
|
|
Post by alltouttt on Nov 21, 2008 21:40:55 GMT -5
As the years rolled by I wore out my first copy, to be replaced by a second LP copy followed by an 8-track tape followed by a cassette tape and finally by the CD release.
That's how Macca became a billionnaire ... ;D
|
|
Todd
Very Clean
Posts: 14
|
Post by Todd on Nov 21, 2008 23:52:14 GMT -5
I remember purchasing the "White Album" at the mall before class in my first year of college (I think it was Fall, 1996). It was "Hey Jude" that turned me on to the Beatles only a couple of years before, so it's no surprise that I liked it as much as I did.
I don't put it on often anymore, but when I do I sing along to each song with a huge smile on my face. "Dear Prudence" and "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" are still two of my favorite songs. I also love all of George's songs (including "Long Long Long"!).
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Nov 22, 2008 6:44:45 GMT -5
I bought my copy of the White Album in the early 70's and enjoyed some of the songs and scratched my head over others. I was fascinated by the 'Paul is Dead' rumors and knew that 'Revolution 9' was supposed to have lots of 'clues'. It was a fascinating listen to say the least. Whenever I listen to the White Album I try to listen from beginning to end as I feel that's the way the album was meant to be heard. I did get to the point where I lifted the needle whenever I got to 'Revolution 9'. You can only hear 'Hold That Line!' just so many times. (No offense to socer/football fans. LIVERPOOL!!!)
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 22, 2008 10:30:46 GMT -5
To tie this thread with the "Carnival of Light" thread (and the comments on "Revolution #9), arguably no band or singer could have put out and album as powerfully and honestly diverse as the White Album. Stones doing "Honey Pie"? Beach Boys doing "Happiness is a Warm Gun"? Hendrix doing "Don't Pass Me By"? The Kinks doing "Revolution #9"? Dylan doing "Back in the USSR"? Bee Gees doing "Yer Blues"? Cream doing "Good Night"?
Many people criticize artists for being "unfocused" when they are eclectic. For most artists that might be fair. But, the Beatles' greatness is not just in the quality of the songs (music), the quality of the records (arrangements), or the quality of their popularity (influence). The legitimate diversity of their catalog is a sign of daring, innovation, exploration, and bravery. Isn't that what being artistic is about? The fact that they were able to do it in a pop format is really the IT about them. Anyone can be edgy or avant garde as an outsider. Try doing it on "the charts".
|
|
|
Post by alltouttt on Nov 22, 2008 12:02:00 GMT -5
"arguably no band or singer could have put out and album as powerfully and honestly diverse as the White Album."
Diversity had a lot to do with the fact that at the time, the Beatles had stopped working as a band and were each recording their own songs with the other members acting as studio musicians...
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 22, 2008 12:24:05 GMT -5
Diversity had a lot to do with the fact that at the time, the Beatles had stopped working as a band and were each recording their own songs with the other members acting as studio musicians... I guess they just didn't want to be involved with other band members' diversity. George didn't care about "Revolution #9", but goes out and does "Electronic Sound"? What's the dif, George?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 22, 2008 12:31:15 GMT -5
"arguably no band or singer could have put out and album as powerfully and honestly diverse as the White Album." Diversity had a lot to do with the fact that at the time, the Beatles had stopped working as a band and were each recording their own songs with the other members acting as studio musicians... Whatever the reason for that diversity, it exists on this album and The Beatles pulled it off as sayne writes. There were sessions on this album as good as any The Beatles ever had so I am not entirely convinced of John's RS interview declaration of, "It was me and a band, and Paul and a band," etc., for the whole album. It seems to have been the "tension album" for sure but since when is tension a bad thing in the creative process? Since 1968, I would bet that The White Album has remained the most constant Beatles' album to be found and heard on college campuses; colleges and grad schools(next to the military) being the largest collector of persons 18 to 25, a core music listening and buying group. I think the eclectic nature of the White Album is one of the biggest reasons why The Beatles remain vital today. It transcends any and all musical trends because it seems to have anticipated or parodied many of them.
|
|
JCV
Very Clean
Posts: 545
|
Post by JCV on Nov 22, 2008 13:22:10 GMT -5
I remember buying the White Album at National Record Mart when I was in 8th grade, so that would have been 1976ish. It was on a Sunday and it was freezing outside. Mine has the gray lettering on the front. We only had one turntable in the house and, for whatever reason, I wasn't able to play the record right away, but I did check out the pictures and poster inside. The next day we ended up having a two-hour snow delay for school and I was able to listen to the first disc. I remember going to school and telling a friend that she just had to check out my new record 'cause it had so many different styles of music on it. My favorites were "Dear Prudence," "Glass Onion," "WMGGW," and "WDWDIITR." You're right alltouttt...that's why Paul is a millionaire 'cause I too have multipe copies of this on cassette and CD. JCV
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Nov 22, 2008 16:28:09 GMT -5
My favorites were "Dear Prudence," "Glass Onion," "WMGGW," and "WDWDIITR." WDWDIITR? That must have made you blush! (Not to mention scandalising your mother if she knew! )
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 22, 2008 17:26:17 GMT -5
I have a CD of Beatle covers and there was this one country/blues band that did "Why Don't We Do It In the Road" in a real roots blues/rock/country manner. The thing is that they expanded the lyrics, as in "why don't we do it in the yard", "why don't we do it in the car" . . . It actually seemed to have a plot.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Nov 22, 2008 18:20:19 GMT -5
I guess they just didn't want to be involved with other band members' diversity. George didn't care about "Revolution #9", but goes out and does "Electronic Sound"? What's the dif, George? Maybe because one man's meat is another man's poison? "Your project is junk, but mine is art!"
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 23, 2008 6:35:32 GMT -5
Played mine all the way through, start to finish, in order, on the day it came out. Loved most of it, was bemused by Wild Honey Pie and Why don't we do it in the road, got to Rev 9 and thought WTF? Loved the packaging. Thought it was great value, following on the heels of Hey Jude/Revolution, also great value, thrilled that Yellow Submarine was following so close behind - oh dear, not such great value. The white album was THE album for teenage Christmas parties in 1968.
The difference between Revolution 9 and Electronic Sounds is that the latter is exactly what the Beatles set up Apple for (one of the reasons at any rate) - so that they would have a mechanism whereby they could put their individual niche projects into the public domain. Yes, you could buy Electronic Sounds if you wanted (I didn't, and didn't). Revolution 9 - well, if you wanted the Beatles latest music then you were stuck with Revolution 9 too. George never sought to muscle his non-musical meanderings onto a mainstream Beatles release: John did.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 23, 2008 7:58:54 GMT -5
George never sought to muscle his non-musical meanderings onto a mainstream Beatles release: John did. John had the clout. But still - George managed to get his Indian music recognized.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Nov 23, 2008 16:10:24 GMT -5
. The difference between Revolution 9 and Electronic Sounds is that the latter is exactly what the Beatles set up Apple for (one of the reasons at any rate) - so that they would have a mechanism whereby they could put their individual niche projects into the public domain. Yes, you could buy Electronic Sounds if you wanted (I didn't, and didn't). Revolution 9 - well, if you wanted the Beatles latest music then you were stuck with Revolution 9 too. George never sought to muscle his non-musical meanderings onto a mainstream Beatles release: John did. I'm betting that many people who bought Revolver loved For No One, Eleanor Rigby, Taxman, and Dr. Robert but felt "stuck with" Tomorrow Never Knows. I disagree that Revolution #9 is non-musical. To state it simply I hear piano, strings, horns, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Nov 23, 2008 16:13:04 GMT -5
Diversity had a lot to do with the fact that at the time, the Beatles had stopped working as a band and were each recording their own songs with the other members acting as studio musicians... I guess they just didn't want to be involved with other band members' diversity. George didn't care about "Revolution #9", but goes out and does "Electronic Sound"? What's the dif, George? Yes, and thanks to George, according to at least one account, Carnival of Light didn't make A2 because of his objections. Whether we finally get it or not, I'll always be irked that it didn't wind up where it belonged in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by alltouttt on Nov 23, 2008 18:51:52 GMT -5
From the bottom of my heart ...
THANK YOU GEORGE!!
Oh! And *Tomorrow Never Knows* is one of the first piece of music to herald the psychedelic era...
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Nov 23, 2008 21:21:40 GMT -5
From the bottom of my heart ... THANK YOU GEORGE!! Oh! And *Tomorrow Never Knows* is one of the first piece of music to herald the psychedelic era... Why would you, and others, celebrate not hearing something from the Beatle vault? Is it possible you'll think differently after hearing it? Is your comment about Tomorrow Never Knows related to my post? If it is, I think you missed the point. Or you're helping me make it.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 23, 2008 22:50:03 GMT -5
I guess they just didn't want to be involved with other band members' diversity. George didn't care about "Revolution #9", but goes out and does "Electronic Sound"? What's the dif, George? Yes, and thanks to George, according to at least one account, Carnival of Light didn't make A2 because of his objections. Whether we finally get it or not, I'll always be irked that it didn't wind up where it belonged in the first place. The Anthology releases were a flawed project from the beginning. The first one was a mess with all the interview excerpts. They'd planned to make it a six disc set released at once. That never happened. Not to mention the fact that the sets were delayed because of squabbling. I'm glad CofL did not get released in the Anthologies. It would have been a waste of space. And what would have been left off to make room for it? I wouldn't want to have made that decision.
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Nov 24, 2008 3:19:04 GMT -5
The Anthology releases were a flawed project from the beginning. The first one was a mess with all the interview excerpts. They'd planned to make it a six disc set released at once. That never happened. Not to mention the fact that the sets were delayed because of squabbling. I'm glad CofL did not get released in the Anthologies. It would have been a waste of space. And what would have been left off to make room for it? I wouldn't want to have made that decision. Interesting. I never knew that all was not well beneath the surface with the 'Anthology' releases. This, of course, is depressingly consistent with Apple's travails over the rest of the Beatles' back catalogue.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 24, 2008 4:10:10 GMT -5
I'm betting that many people who bought Revolver loved For No One, Eleanor Rigby, Taxman, and Dr. Robert but felt "stuck with" Tomorrow Never Knows. I disagree that Revolution #9 is non-musical. To state it simply I hear piano, strings, horns, etc. Me for one. I was never enamoured of Tomorrow Never knows, and I'm still not. But at least it was musical. I can't see how the fact that you can hear musical instruments on Revolution 9 qualifies it as musical, given that it doesn't have such things as tempo, melody, harmony etc. I think by any rational definition of "music" or "musical", Revolution 9 fails to qualify. But I'm more than happy to listen to counterarguments!
|
|