Beatles for Sale
The Beatles
1964
You should probably know by now—either from reading this blog, or from arguing with me in real life—that I'm the type of person who is going to make an effort to understand and appreciate those things in life that are typically disliked or disregarded. Whether you consider this character trait noble, or simply contrarian/dickish, is up to you. I could see it going either way.
But look at the evidence. I've defended Degrassi so long that it just comes naturally. I took the time to enjoy a Velvet Underground album that is completely dismissed by all serious music appreciators. Pop culture aside, there have been plenty of times when someone asks me why I still hang out with a particular friend, and my knee jerk reaction is just pulling that particular friend closer into my orbit. It's probably why I'm drawn to progressive politics/ideals ("yes, even these heroin addicts have basic human rights") and even social work as a profession ("I'm going to give at least a tiny bit of a shit about this kid who's been uncared for by even his own family").
Again, I'm not trying to portray myself as a saint. Most of the time it really is me just pulling the "Well, actually..." card to get a reaction out of people, and those times when it isn't (human rights, social work, etc.), it's really fucking hard.
But let's put the serious stuff aside for a second and focus on the shit that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things—a fucking Beatles album.
I am setting the stage in this particular manner because Beatles for Sale is typically known as the worst full Beatles LP. I want you to know how I typically operate as a human being, because if you know that, then it'll be easy to guess that I will defend Beatles for Sale as a work of art, and say with full conviction that the critics are wrong, that Beatles for Sale isn't bad, and that it is totally worth your time.
And yes, I realize the ridiculousness of the argument. Should I really have to do any heavy lifting to convince anyone that an album by the fucking Beatles is worth your time? The most popular rock 'n' roll band in history?! Shouldn't I be saving this type of argument for a no-name indie rock underdog? Maybe. I dunno. Just let me do my thing.
And yes, I also realize that even the thought of attempting to make an argument that Beatles for Sale is better than the "classics," e.g. Sgt. Pepper, White Album, etc., would be a fool's errand, and absolutely not true. I guess I'm really just arguing that, despite Beatles for Sale paling in comparison to the greats, it's still pretty fucking great.
This is probably where I should make the argument that is typically presented against Beatles for Sale, and then I'll knock it down. Here we go. I'm assuming Beatles for Sale's poor reputation is tied to the circumstances under which it was created. This is LP4 for the band, and it had only been 21 months since the release of LP1, Please Please Me. The band was exhausted, but were pressured to create more and more music. They fit a recording session in in between global tours. It features six covers versus eight originals.
It presumably felt tossed off, especially in the immediate wake of A Hard Day's Night. Please Please Me and With the Beatles were more similar to Beatles for Sale in that they featured some strong originals and then a bunch of covers, but A Hard Day's Night was different. All originals, a strong concept, it felt like the Beatles were leveling up. So maybe Beatles for Sale felt like a step back, at the time?
I get it. A Hard Day's Night is fantastic, and the Beatles would obviously go on to do way better shit (and they would stop with the covers after this album). But I think in dismissing Beatles for Sale as a regression is missing the inherent weirdness baked into the finished product.
Like, did you know that this is a country album? I mean, okay, not really, but if you squint, you can see the influences that country had on the Beatles at the time. There are two Carl Perkins covers, plus a bunch of other stuff that sounds vaguely country-ish (Lennon's "I'm a Loser" being the best example). That's a fucking weird and somewhat forgotten subthread in the history of the Beatles, how they almost made a full left turn into Americana (the psychedelics would pull them back from this particular abyss).
We can also talk about how fucking sad this album is. One might assume that being the biggest rock 'n' roll stars on earth might inject a little bit of happiness into one's life, but Beatles for Sale makes the opposite argument: we may be popular, but we are lonely. "No Reply" finds frustration in losing the one you love (this amid millions of girls throwing their panties in the general direction of the band). "Baby's in Black" is about wishing that the girl you love would just get over her dead husband already—shit's dark!
Probably the weirdest part about Beatles for Sale is how jarring it is to hear these sad, somber tunes butt up against some out-of-place-sounding jovial cover tunes. "Baby's in Black" slides into the classic Chuck Berry tune "Rock and Roll Music," and the juxtaposition is utterly bizarre. And then after that song, the album switches gears again and goes into a very soft and sweet (and surprisingly catchy) McCartney tune, "I'll Follow the Sun." The pacing on Beatles for Sale is insane.
And therein lies its genius, in my humble opinion. This was the Beatles realizing they could do whatever the fuck they wanted, and get away with it. They could sing about death and sadness, and audiences would fall in love. They could sing about the awful price of fame, and subsequently become more famous. Fucking anything. Without Beatles for Sale, there would be no Revolver. It fits in the sequence. If anyone tries to tell you it's an outlier, then that person is an outLIAR.
I wonder, though, if I didn't need that negative critical reaction to be able to see the good here. If Beatles for Sale was as beloved as the other non-Yellow Submarine albums, would I have cared as much? Or is my love for Beatles for Sale more indicative of who I am as a person than of the album itself? Maybe both. But if you're like the majority of Beatles fans, and tend to dismiss Beatles for Sale, I'm here to tell you: be more like me, and give it a chance. You might be surprised.
If this album sounds interesting, try this song: "I'm a Loser"
Stray Observations
- It's kind of wild that I spoke at this length about Beatles for Sale and didn't mention the most popular and well-known song on the album, "Eight Days a Week." It hit number one in the US, and remains one of the most popular early-era Beatles tunes (you may remember it from the 1 commercial that played constantly growing up).
- It should go without saying that the phrase "eight days a week" is a classic Ringo Starr malapropism.
- That is interesting to bring up though, because I didn't even have to look that up to know that Ringo Starr said the phrase originally. I just knew it. What is it about the Beatles that makes people obsess over the details and the minute parts of their history? So many fucking people write books about the Beatles, but everyone already knows everything. It's crazy.
- No Beatles album would be complete without a straight-up bad song. The winner here is "Every Little Thing," with a chorus that sounds worse than an off-key drunk karaoke singer. Still, it's not a song that completely ruins the album—again, the Beatles could do ANYTHING.
- Don't let the jaunty little "I Don't Want to Spoil the Party" fool you. This is John Lennon at one of his darkest moments. Who hasn't been at a party, a little drunk, and just fucking miserable? I have. Lennon has. Good fucking song.
- CHARTS: It didn't chart in the U.S. Wait, oh fuck...
- ...I completely overshot the point where I should've explained the disconnect between the Beatles discography in the U.K. and the U.S. This is something that I didn't really grasp until much later in life. Capitol Records, the publisher in the U.S., shuffled almost all of the Beatles' early albums, creating completely new albums out of those songs. So the U.S. didn't even have Beatles for Sale until the late '80s, when it was collectively decided that the U.K. discography was the correct one. But in the mid-'60s, US fans were treated to Beatles '65, which included eight Beatles for Sale songs. Then, Beatles VI included the other six, plus some other shit. It's all dumb, and an obvious and craven marketing technique to pump more money out of U.S. fans. You can read more about it on Wikipedia.
- ALBUM COVER: A photo taken by photographer Robert Freeman, it purposefully shows the four Beatles frowning. (More on wiki.)
- ALBUM TITLE: And if you still doubt that this was a purposefully sad album, then look to the title, where it is made known that the Beatles felt more like commodities than actual human beings at this point.
- There is an artist named Ryley Walker. I've heard of him (mainly through critic Steven Hyden's schoolboy crush on him), but haven't gotten around to checking out any of his work yet. I do know, however, that at one point, he felt the same warm feelings as I currently do toward Beatles for Sale, and recorded an entire full album cover of it. But now, I can't find it anywhere online. Do I have the right artist? Am I making it up completely? Help me out, internet.
- Okay, so this is it for our Beatles coverage in this column for many years (due to alphabetical reasons). It's probably the best time to tell you what my favorite Beatles album is. You could probably guess, based on the thesis above, that my favorite album is The White Album. I can't imagine where Beatles for Sale falls in the rankings, because making such a ranking is a chore that I've thus far avoided. It's mid-tier at least.
NEXT TIME: I Love You, Honeybear by Father John Misty (I'll explain the break in alphabetical order when the time comes)
No comments:
Post a Comment