Ray Davies reviewed Revolver way back when

[Strays Dave]

Ray Davies reviewing the Beatles Revolver seems to me like he was in over his head, Musically speaking.

 

 

Ray Davies reviews Revolver

https://ultimateclassicrock.com/ray-davies-reviews-revolver/

[KuruPrionz]

I don't entirely disagree with Mr. Davies on this one. I am a huge Beatles fan but time has brought perspective and they had their share of very well produced but overall not great material.

He notes his favorites and makes good choices there.

 

Reviews are worth what we pay for them in the end. I'm definitely not a "The Beatles can do no wrong" kind of guy. In my opinion Pete Townshend was a better writer than John or Paul. Ray Davies wrote some great tunes as well. Nobody bats 1,000.

[Anderton]

A piece of music isn't a constant. You can listen to something one day and love it, and listen to it some other time and wonder what you heard in it. It's also very subjective. I've often told the story of getting two reviews for a concert, one over-the-top positive, one over-the-top negative. Who was right? Both, and neither. The oddest thing about them was that they chose the same things to prove their point ("the guitar player made some amazing electronic sounds, it was a highlight" vs. "and then the guitar player made noises from some box, definitely a low point").

 

With the music I'm doing lately, the people who like it, really like it. But for others, it just doesn't appeal to them. It's not that they hate it, they're indifferent (which in a way, I guess is worse, LOL).

 

Or consider Mark (BMD). I think his music is exceptional, but it hasn't turned into a musical career for him. Which is really a shame on one level, but on another level...the people who like it, really like it. That should be enough. Even if I was told no one would ever listen to my music, I'd still make music, because I love to make music. If other people like it, that's gratifying, but not necessary. Ray Davies wasn't the only one turned off by the Beatles, there were a lot of critics (and regular people) who thought they sucked. That's fine - there's enough music so that everyone can find something they like.

 

time has brought perspective

 

And I think music is very much of its time. The 60s were a unique slice of history, and if you didn't live during that time, the music of that era may sound dated (it is), but you can turn that around into "quaint" or "innocent." And, there's no shock of the new. So much of what was done in the 60s has been assimilated into the flood of culture that's happened since then. There's some music when the first time you hear it, it's a shocking departure, and that alone turns your head.

 

Not that we've had many shocking departures lately, though...

[Nowarezman]

I remember reading Ray and Dave interviews where they mentioned some friction with the Fab Four. As I recall, it sounded like a bit of sour grapes with a solid dollop of competitiveness.

 

I must say I think "Sunny Afternoon" is a bit better song than "Good Day Sunshine" - especially when comparing lyrics. Altho' McCartney's odd meter is really well done. Very curious that both Sunny Afternoon and Revolver were released June '66 and both mention the taxman and pleasant sunny days. Hmmm.....

 

Sebastian's "Daydream" came out in February '66 - that has to be part of the reason the sunny-day theme was in so many songs soon thereafter.

 

So much happened so fast in those heady days, musically - I have these big playlists from the top 100 songs for each year, '63 through '70. Still amazes me, the rapid evolution of things. 1962 seemed practically like a different century than 1972 - at least in the corner of the world where I lived through those times.

 

nat

[Strays Dave]

When I listen to the Beatles, I don't just listen for lyrics, chords and melody. For me the greatness of the Beatles is in the sum of the parts in any given recording. I think their brilliance was in their arrangements. Paul's inventively crafted bass lines, their rich vocal harmonies, counter-melodies by George in some of the recordings. Things like the chord voicings used on certain songs, and even the sonics and effects they used in things like "Tomorrow Never Knows".

 

When I googled the Kinks hits in 1966, I saw "Sunny Afternoon" , "Well Respected Man" and "Dandy". I grew up with these songs and enjoyed them. But in my opinion they don't stand up to things like "Taxman" , "And Your Bird Can Sing" , "Good Day Sunshine" and "Elanor Rigby".

Like I mentioned before, for me it's the totality of what is heard when playing the recordings.

 

As for the Who, I have to confess that in my opinion, "Run Run Run", "Happy Jack" , and "Boris the Spider" do stand up in comparison. But the stylistic range the Beatles had in songs like "Here There and Everywhere" - and in their harmonic construction... I haven't heard in the Who, and never heard in the Kinks. And hearing Ray Davies assessment of "Here There and Everywhere" as having busy chords.... ?

 

For me it's similar to some of Duke Ellington's music from circa 1935-40. There was plenty of other great music, but Ellington's harmonic content generally outshines the others.

 

But for anyone who's younger than dirt (I'm getting to be older than dirt), one example from 1964, before the Fab ones became so much more exploratory and experimental. I remember playing "If I Fell" on my $20 GE record player when it was current. It sort of turned my ear on it's side - the odd harmonic construction gave it something special. Everyone's musical mileage may likely vary,.

 

I wish I could post a YT link that wasn't so big.

 

And Duke Ellington in 1935 - Reminiscing in Tempo

[Anderton]

I kinda think the comparison is a bit apples and oranges. The Kinks made their initial splash with "You Really Got Me," which of course is one of those brash rock period pieces that took on a life of its own. But over time, the Kinks were more about social commentary, where the lyrics were prioritized over the music. In a way, it was more like a variation on singer/songwriter music than a rock band.

 

And of course with the Beatles, George Martin's contribution cannot be understated. Whether capturing the raw energy of the early years, or creating more sophisticated arrangements later on, the Beatles would not have been the Beatles without him.

 

There's no question that the Beatles' songwriting delved into chord structures that were not associated normally with rock music, and I think that's one of the reasons their music has endured - in a world of I IV V and relative minor, it still stands out as unique.

[KuruPrionz]

When I listen to the Beatles, I don't just listen for lyrics, chords and melody. For me the greatness of the Beatles is in the sum of the parts in any given recording. I think their brilliance was in their arrangements. Paul's inventively crafted bass lines, their rich vocal harmonies, counter-melodies by George in some of the recordings. Things like the chord voicings used on certain songs, and even the sonics and effects they used in things like "Tomorrow Never Knows".

 

When I googled the Kinks hits in 1966, I saw "Sunny Afternoon" , "Well Respected Man" and "Dandy". I grew up with these songs and enjoyed them. But in my opinion they don't stand up to things like "Taxman" , "And Your Bird Can Sing" , "Good Day Sunshine" and "Elanor Rigby".

Like I mentioned before, for me it's the totality of what is heard when playing the recordings.

 

As for the Who, I have to confess that in my opinion, "Run Run Run", "Happy Jack" , and "Boris the Spider" do stand up in comparison. But the stylistic range the Beatles had in songs like "Here There and Everywhere" - and in their harmonic construction... I haven't heard in the Who, and never heard in the Kinks. And hearing Ray Davies assessment of "Here There and Everywhere" as having busy chords.... ?

 

For me it's similar to some of Duke Ellington's music from circa 1935-40. There was plenty of other great music, but Ellington's harmonic content generally outshines the others.

 

But for anyone who's younger than dirt (I'm getting to be older than dirt), one example from 1964, before the Fab ones became so much more exploratory and experimental. I remember playing "If I Fell" on my $20 GE record player when it was current. It sort of turned my ear on it's side - the odd harmonic construction gave it something special. Everyone's musical mileage may likely vary,.

 

I wish I could post a YT link that wasn't so big.

 

And Duke Ellington in 1935 - Reminiscing in Tempo

 

Well, it is easy to cherry pick things. As I said, I don't entirely disagree with Ray Davies, that does not mean I totally agree with him either.

 

For some other perspectives, learn Ferry Cross The Mersey, written by Gerry Marsden and performed by Gerry and the Pacemakers. It was a hit in 1965 in the US. Our singer recently brought it in and the chords are definitely not I-IV-V_VI Min by any means, there is a very slick modulation in there.

 

We could compare Behind Blue Eyes by The Who with all sorts of things, it is a very well written song and the chords are pretty subtle and clever in some parts.

Or, let's compare I Want You/She's So Heavy with Eminence Front, which sounds like it could be influenced by the former.

 

I want you, I want you so bad

I want you, I want you so bad

I want you, I want you so bad

I want you, I want you so bad

 

I want you so bad it's driving me mad it's driving me mad (ad infinitum).

She's so heaveeeeeeeeeey (over and over).

 

Not everything the Beatles did stands up very well, does it? I don't think so and again, I am a HUGE fan of the Beatles. I'm just not over the top about everything. Cheers, Kuru

[Strays Dave]

 

Well, it is easy to cherry pick things. As I said, I don't entirely disagree with Ray Davies, that does not mean I totally agree with him either.

 

For some other perspectives, learn Ferry Cross The Mersey, written by Gerry Marsden and performed by Gerry and the Pacemakers. It was a hit in 1965 in the US. Our singer recently brought it in and the chords are definitely not I-IV-V_VI Min by any means, there is a very slick modulation in there.

 

We could compare Behind Blue Eyes by The Who with all sorts of things, it is a very well written song and the chords are pretty subtle and clever in some parts.

Or, let's compare I Want You/She's So Heavy with Eminence Front, which sounds like it could be influenced by the former.

 

I want you, I want you so bad

I want you, I want you so bad

I want you, I want you so bad

I want you, I want you so bad

 

I want you so bad it's driving me mad it's driving me mad (ad infinitum).

She's so heaveeeeeeeeeey (over and over).

 

Not everything the Beatles did stands up very well, does it? I don't think so and again, I am a HUGE fan of the Beatles. I'm just not over the top about everything. Cheers, Kuru

 

 

 

I just pulled up Ferry Cross the Mersey on YT and played along with it in E major. I didn't hear any real invention in the chord changes.

 

 

LYRICS......................................................................................In the bridge it has an F# min / B / E / (again) F# min / B / E / (and then)

 

We don't care what your name is boy / but we'll never turn you away

F# min .............................G# min...........F# maj............................B and back to the verse in E major.

 

I don't hear any real inventive chord changes here.

 

And then I pulled up I Want You (She's So Heavy) and attempted to play along. It's pretty tricky to my ears - pivoting back and forth between the keys of D minor and A minor. And it's not just the fact that it pivots - it's the interesting ways the pivots are executed. The key (for me at least) is to focus on Paul's bass line to figure out what's happening harmonically.

 

In my view, the arrangement redeems this (She's So Heavy) "simple" song. Sure the lyrics are basic and repeated ad nauseum (we all know John could've pulled plenty more lyrics out of his hat) . BUT, the musical content makes it interesting. Along with the "wall of sound" white noise and the continuing (barely audible) vocals against the white noise. And the sudden cut-off at the song's end - I read that Lennon used a pair of scissors to cut the tape at the specific spot where the song cuts off. It's the recording taken in its totality. For me the harmony redeems "She's So Heavy". It would take some time for me to fully get the chord changes. But there's one interesting pivot point with an E7(b9) and another point with an A7(#5) . I invite anyone reading this to take this song apart.

 

The Fabs used arrangements with other (virtually all?) things, most notably vocal harmonies. It would have been interesting to hear the Beatles treatment of "Ferry Cross the Mersy" - catchy harmonies would be one likelihood.

I call it the Beatles treatment. And I never heard music nearly as interesting by them post-Beatles. IMO, George came the closest. His "All Things Must Pass" comes to mind - but too much sameness employed in Phi Spector's wall of sound.

 

Which brings me to my assessment: The brilliance in the Beatles was that they avoided cliche.

 

Everyone's mileage obviously varies.

[KuruPrionz]

Everyone's mileage obviously varies.

 

Indeed it does! Our singer brought in Ferry Cross the Mersey and while the chords themselves are pretty straight, there are a couple of unusual (in my limited experience) quirks that I found interesting.

We play it in D, he sings it better there. First, we play D Am, I have heard and played lots of tunes with a 4th that goes from major to minor but I don't recall many that are in a major key and use a minor 5th.

On the bridge - Em A D, Em A D, Em A F#m (all in D major chorally) E major A major and back to D Am. The major 2 to the fifth of the tonic is not unusual in itself but given the quick switches from Em to E major and the switch from A major to A minor is a bit different. I don't know of another song that does it quite the same way.

 

I fully agree on George post Beatles. His work was the best and he remained an important influence on how pop music and pop guitar were played.

 

That is something notable in itself. His use of a Rickenbacker 12 string guitar on a Hard Days Night brought 12 string guitar to the forefront, triggered Roger McGuinn buying a similar guitar and much later, Tom Petty following suit.

 

The sitar on Norwegian Wood influenced a phase of pop music, including Joe South - The Games People Play and Stevie Wonder - I Was Made To Love Her.

Danelectro issued the first electric sitar largely due to George's influence and it was used on many records.

 

Last but not least, George's style on slide guitar is unprecedented and his slide harmony work on My Sweet Lord and others prompted another wave of imitation, melodic slide guitar harmonies were a "thing" for a while. I still consider George to be one of the top electric slide guitarists, listen to Marwa Blues on his last record, that is a transcendently beautiful piece of music.

[BMD]

The Beatles, as the sum of their parts, were the best band ever. They just were/are. Ray Davies was an OK songwriter, as was Pete Townshend. Nothing more than that

 

I always think of bands/artists in terms of a pyramid. Most bands are at the bottom, and the higher you go the fewer bands there are in each tier. Finally, at the top, you have The Beatles on their own. Simple as that, really

 

 

(Thanks for the compliment, Craig)

[KuruPrionz]

Well, I do know better than to argue with opinions, even if I forget sometimes.

 

They are all worth what we paid for them, even mine (which are priceless... lol).

 

What is important is that we enjoy music, ours and others. Life is short and music is a precious gift, enjoy! Cheers, Kuru

[KuruPrionz]

OK, to heck with it.

 

Let feathers be ruffled, let torches be lit and arm the peasants with pitchforks

 

In my humble opinion, the best pop/rock/etc. record to come out of the sixties is The Band by The Band. It stands tall on its own mountain, great songs, great renditions.

Nothing the Beatles (as much as I love their music) did is in the same league.

 

So, kill me!!!! Cheers, Kuru

[Strays Dave]

The great thing about this thread is that it got me to pull out my Beatles Fake Book (Hal Leonard). I looked up She's So Heavy and played thru it, singing. And I discovered I can sing in the original key if I drop the B section in D minor, down an octave. So I'm now working on it. I may learn the Gerry and the Pacemakers.

 

What I discovered is that there's a real monkey wrench in Heavy when they play (around 1 min 45 sec) several measures of the E7(b9) with Paul's great bass line. But instead of going from E , up to A (as one ears might likely hear it wanting to go) ...they go down to C - D (melodically) and then the key of D min is established. It sort of jars the ears. This ain't just simple blues like it sounds maybe on first pass. As I hear it.

 

And I almost forgot - the beginning of the song - with it's D min E7(9) Bb7 A7(#5) along with Paul's bass line. - This ain't no ordinary primal blues song.

 

Beatles Fake Book

https://smile.amazon.com/Beatles-Fake-Book/dp/B000XY4DII/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=the+beatles+fake+book&qid=1622923846&sr=8-2