The Water Cooler
See other The Water Cooler Articles
Title: All 213 Beatles Songs, Ranked From Worst to Best
Source:
The Vulture
URL Source: http://www.vulture.com/2017/06/all- ... om-worst-to-best.html#comments
Published: Aug 20, 2014
Author: Bill Wyman (no, not THAT "Bill Wyman")
Post Date: 2018-08-20 12:53:16 by Liberator
Keywords: Beatles, songs, ratings
Views: 2311
Comments: 12
It turns out that ranking the songs recorded by the Beatles in the 1960s is easy; you put the worst one at the top, and the best one at the bottom. The list is based on the band’s British releases, which is how they thought of their work. In the U.K. in the 1960s, the group released 13 official studio albums, including the A Hard Day’s Night, Help!, and Yellow Submarine quasi-soundtrack albums. The so-called “White Album,” The Beatles, was a two-record set. There was also a flurry of non-album singles throughout those years, collected in different ways in the U.K. and the U.S. EMI also released a number of four-song EPs in Britain, particularly early on, but only one of them, Long Tall Sally, contained songs not available in other forms. Releases in the U.S. were a similar mishmash, but from Revolver onward, with minor exceptions, the studio-album releases, at least, were standardized. The songs the band released in the 1960s that were not on their studio albums were eventually consolidated in a catchall collection dubbed, quite lamely, Past Masters. The Beatles based their sound largely on American R&B, and they, like their compatriots in the Rolling Stones and the Yardbirds, filled their early records with covers of their favorite tracks. They are duly noted below; most sound like the appreciative efforts of a young and not-quite-formed band; the Beatles being the Beatles, however, a few are transcendent. I use the songs on those releases to create this ranking, with some ephemera (like the German versions of “She Loves You” and “I Want to Hold Your Hand,” or George Martin’s Yellow Submarine orchestrations) ignored, with a few other interesting tracks that have dribbled out over the decades added in. This doesn’t get said enough: These songs were specifically designed to pack their punch at high volume. Try ‘em with real speakers, not headphones.... ...Any mistakes are, of course, my own. Please let me know if I conflated any facts or misrepresented anything in the comments section below, or publicly humiliate me on Twitter @hitsville. Beyond everything else, the Beatles were the biggest cultural story of the modern era, and they were, in the end, pop, if pop is music that makes people happy. Through the confusion and the chaos, the pain and the self-questioning, they worked to create a joyous sound. They didn’t fuss about it; it’s what they wanted to do. They loved to turn us on.
Poster Comment: I thought this author's List and so-called "Ratings" and comments/impression for each song was interesting. Even IF I disagreed with most of his list. If you read his critiques, he seemed to hold Paul McCartney in contempt. Simple IS best sometimes. But not according to this author. what has always bothered me are people insist that when critiqung art (whether movies or music) "Edgy" = Better. How do you tell someone? "YOU HAD TO BE THERE AT THE TIME." Yet...your age also had a bearing on your impression -- musically as well as personally. Simple call for me. But...that's just me. Rating Beatles songs is like rating your favorite foods; It's a mood-thing. A "comfort-food" thing; a nostalgia-thing; and era-thing; and most of all, a style-thing. That said, The Beatles was in itself a "Genre". Especially early on. Early Beatles -- considered 1962-1965 is by far my favorite era of Beatles songs. Especially during '63-'65. I was very young, but back then most kids followed and knew baseball and music extremely well; there few distractions. At one time in '64, the Beatles had the Top 8 of 10 Billboard hits. It could well have been 15-20, they were that good. No one came close to toucing them and their sound (The Stones and Dave Clark Five came closest.) IF one remembers the era and time, early Beatles music at the time was so fresh, so sweet, so different, so dynamic and so...good that its spoiled your ear and forever. AS WELL AS ruining any future expectations for the Beatles. Yeah, I know -- during '66-'67 they also composed good stuff, on up to Abbey Road -- but they also produced quite a bit of absolute rubbish. For me, the Early Beatles era of '62-'65 was Lightning-In-A Bottle, an era of humility, of heart, of romanticism and idealism still untainted by drugs and cynicism. DRUGS RUINED THE BEATLES. Lennon-McCarthy began their roller-coaster downward and their imminent emotional baggage began seeping into their albums by 1965. Even as a kid, I still recall sensing a relentless bitterness and confusion. Their mostly fresh-sounding up-beat/melancholy tracks and lyrics by 1966 became infused damaged-goods/lost-soul lyrics along with goofy compositions; By 1967 their psychedelic-sitar style and enigmatic lyrics, goofiness, and off-the-wall drug-induced edginess was a turn-off. Was some of the Beatles albums '66-'67 good? Even excellent? Sure. But half the material was trash IMO. By then the Stones were actually arguably better than the Beatles. Many bands had caught up to them. After that till the end (1970), a mockery of their own art, celebration of the druggie experience, and sexual innuendo continued while their whining and social commentary made Beatles music insufferable. Franky, they just plain ran out of gas. What were *your* earliest impressions of the Beatles? When were *your* favorite era of Beatles music? Your worst? Impressions/commentary? (Yes. You just had to be there. And old enough to remember the Ed Sullivan Show.) Though it got minimal airplay, here is my favorite "essential" Beatles song:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
#2. To: Liberator (#0)
"Another Girl"..... thanks for the reminders; the vocal harmonies still blow me away. I have all the released Beatles stuff, in Mono and Stereo; never get tired of hearing one when I put the server into Random Play mode. It tells me that if I started playing my current collection of tracks 24/7, nonstop - it would take 1,311 hours, 45 mins, 11 secs to listen to every one of them once. I remember agonizing which six of my CDs I'd load into the changer on my motorcycle years ago - now every track I own is on my phone as well as my server; it amazes me to think of such miracles. Thanks be to lawyers and politicians, who bring us all of the good things. Sometimes it takes a while for a gem I haven't heard in years to fall out of the speakers. Need to cut down on talk podcasts and get the music back on center stage.
There are no replies to Comment # 10. End Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#8. To: misterwhite (#2)
#10. To: Hank Rearden (#8)
Replies to Comment # 10.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]