Profligate Vinyl: The Beatles (a.k.a. The White Album)

This will be the first of what I hope to be a continuing series on double albums. The double album was a big deal in the pop era pre-compact disc: it was considered an epic and extravagant artistic statement, especially since the pop album itself was a relatively recent evolution from singles when double albums started showing up. 

In this series, I will consider a double album in depth, and opine whether or not it would have been better as a single album. To that end, I will present an edited version of the album (in the form of a Spotify playlist). The edited version will be limited to just around 45 minutes, which is the approximate length of the average LP (or, at least, one side of a C-90 cassette). 

In this inaugural edition, I will consider the White Album. 

*          *          *          *          *

"Well I hope I'm smart / But I know I'm not clever / Because deep down inside / I've got a rock -n- roll liver"  -- Tony Woollard/TBW!, "Wicker Park Hyena"

My favorite Beatles-related record is Yoko Ono's Plastic Ono Band record. My second favorite is probably a George Harrison record, but I wouldn't know, because I've never listened to one all the way through. There are many, many pop artists who consider themselves Beatles acolytes; a short list of those bands who actually ended up achieving beyond their masters include Big Star, The Flamin' Groovies, Badfinger, Elton John, and Cheap Trick. The most facile observations on pop music have always been related to the transcendence of the music hall saccharine of the "mop tops".

All this is a mildly exaggerated way of saying that I am not a Beatles fan (though I am dead serious about Big Star and the Yoko Ono record). Some of the first pop albums I listened to as a kid were copies of the red and blue Beatles greatest hits records, but they never really stuck with me. I don't dislike the band, but apparently not acknowledging them as the pinnacle of rock music is akin to being a hater. I have always been surrounded by The Beatles, but I have only ever owned one Beatles album: The Beatles (a.k.a. the White Album).

Needless to say, not being a Beatles fan, I have had no involvement with THE BEATLES INDUSTRY, so any information imparted here comes solely from the Wikipedia page. You may feel free to correct or add to any observations in the comments, put please be advised that I don't give a shit. Below is a track-by-track consideration, with each song rated on a 1-5 scale:

Side One
Back in the USSR -- This is good Paul! A cheeky little Chuck Berry/Beach Boys pastiche that manages to avoid excessive tinkering and lives in exactly the space it needs to. 4/5
Dear Prudence -- One of the absolute best Beatles songs, one of the best pop songs period. Simple, direct, evocative, dreamy. And good work on the skins by Paul. 5/5
Glass Onion -- The music on this is pretty tight, but the lyrics are self-indulgent bullshit. Who cares, John. 3/5
Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da -- This is bad Paul! Or, per John, Paul's "granny shit"! Such a horrible, glib, facile song, overworked to within inches of its life. This is quintessential Paul, which is not good. Only a little bit better than "We Built This City (On Rock and Roll)".  1/5
Wild Honey Pie -- Seriously, WTF. Inoffensive, but definitely a waste of time. 2/5
The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill -- A musical cock-and-bull story. A waste of time. What's the point? Who cares, John. 2/5
While My Guitar Gently Weeps -- Good George! The execution really makes it, because it is only an OK song in abstract, but it ends up being one of the best songs on the album. Clapton does a reasonable job on this . . . but, if you really want to hear someone shred it, listen to Prince tear it up on the Rock -n- Roll Hall of Fame Harrison tribute.  5/5
Happiness is a Warm Gun -- Bad John! There is reference to a lot of self-satisfied yammering about this song, about how John did some really fancy composing, and how the band worked through complicated music to make it work. All I hear is three good songs squashed into one okay song that is definitely less than the sum of its parts. Stitching three random parts together with no connective tissue or unifying themes doesn't work unless you are John Fucking Cage and randomness is the point. One of my pet peeves, b'god. 3.5/5

INTERLUDE

You might see a theme creeping up already: I am not a Paul McCartney fan. It seems to me that Paul personifies (is the source of?) the glibness and facility that is the worst trait of The Beatles; the degree to which this glibness identifies The Beatles is the degree to which I abhor the band. It's not necessarily that I expect all rock music to be raw and lacerating, or penetrating and wise, or sparkling and revelatory. Simple pop music is just fine, not everything has to be GREAT ART. Beatles proteges Badfinger come immediately to mind: simple, direct, well-crafted songs that are not overly wrought or clever, that live where they should live (see "Back in the USSR" v. "Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da" above). Perhaps it is wrong to make Paul the focus of this problem, but in my (admittedly limited) experience, he seems to be the main culprit.

Side Two

Martha My Dear -- On the tail of the above Paul McCartney rant, we have another good Paul song. "Martha My Dear" is heavily wrought, but all the cleverness is in service of the song, instead of being the reason for the song . . . that is as close as I can come to explaining what "living where it should live" means. 4/5 

I'm So Tired -- Simplicity! The somnambulant pace of the song sets the atmosphere with the lyrics riding along - "I'm so tired, I haven't slept a wink" - instead of upstaging the song, as is sometimes the case with these over-clever popsters. When John sings "You know I'd give you everything I've got for a little peace of mind", you feel it. 4/5 

Blackbird -- How did Paul not fuck this song up? 4/5

Piggies -- Hard to figure out just how this thing went so totally off the rails. How does this end up on the record? 2/5
Rocky Raccoon -- Another major WTF moment. I mean, sometimes shit just goes bad, but how does it keep going after it goes bad? AND HOW DOES IT END UP ON THE RECORD? 1/5
Don't Pass Me By -- A fairly inoffensive little shuffle. Kinda sums up Ringo, don't you think? 2.5/5
Why Don't We Do It in the Road? -- Cheeky. And only a minute and 42 seconds long, which is perhaps its major attribute. 2.5/5
I Will -- Again, brevity is its major attribute, but it is perhaps the most forgettable song ever written. I'm desperately trying to ignore the fact that this little locus of amnesia required 67 FREAKING TAKES to come into being.  2.5/5
Julia -- Find a way to convert the word "Julia" into music. Use the music to provide a vehicle for images to support the word Julia. Don't overthink it. It is what it is, and it is beautiful. 4/5

INTERLUDE

"Clever" is the fulcrum here . . . "clever" is the last thing you want to be as an artist, "clever" explicitly implies artifice, artifice undermines authenticity, and, above all, an artist wants to be "real". BUT: all art involves artifice, so really it's not a matter of ditching artifice, it's a matter of hiding artifice. So, in essence, to be "real", you must cleverly avoid seeming clever. The TBW! lyric quoted above is a case in point: it explicitly derides "clever" music, but itself is clever - the dichotomy between "smart" and "clever",  the resulting comment on the authenticity of "art bands", the Lou Reed reference most of the band's fans surely would have caught, the reference to the band's drinking habits - so seemingly takes on an ironic existence on several different levels. 

As convoluted as this seems, it is not: clever for the sake of clever is a problem. Clever for the sake of the art is required. If it's not in service of the song, it's just showing off. That is why, for all its specific facility, for all its overt cleverness, "Martha My Dear" is still a wonderful song: all of Paul's hysteria serves the purpose of the song.

Side Three

Birthday -- Just a fun little ripper. Fun! Written and recorded in one night! Could have been about 55 seconds shorter, though. 3.5/5

Yer Blues -- This is probably the place to confess I might be giving John the benefit of the doubt on these blues songs. If not on "I'm So Tired", then definitely here. On the other hand, I think this thing rocks. 3.5/5

Mother Nature's Son -- I mean, whatever.  3/5

Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey -- Another raver, the velocity of the song keeping the lyrics from becoming too ponderous. What's it about? Who cares? One of those pop songs that sprays disconnected images, and does so with joy. That's worth something.  4/5

Sexy Sadie -- John is MAD! The fact that he lets the lyrics lie there naked helps the song . . . again, hide the artifice, only this time in plain sight.  3.5/5

Helter Skelter -- Apparently, Paul's answer to The Who's "I Can See For Miles", which Townshend claimed was the nastiest, dirtiest song recorded at the time. As always, when Paul keeps it simple, good things happen: all he wanted was loud and psychotic, and that's what he got. Glorious was simply a byproduct.  5/5

Long, Long, Long -- Paul's organ and Ringo's drums-as-a-melodic-instrument lend a great in-between feel to this song: tending to the ethereal, but keeping the song earthbound. It also gives an indeterminate cast to the lyrics - is it about God? or a woman? - that positions it tensely between the immanent and transcendent, a tension which makes it even better than if you go with Harrison's simple explanation that it's about God. Kids, never trust the artist.  5/5

INTERLUDE

I perhaps do give John a benefit of the doubt that I do not give Paul. I do not consider him infallible by any stretch of the imagination, but without his contributions, there would be little of The Beatles for me to hold on to. "Yer Blues" is the point where that comes to a head: I really can't find any concrete reason that the song song stands out over, say, "Don't Pass Me By", or "Why Don't We Do It in the Road", but to me it clearly does. Heretofore I have spent a lot of time talking about songs and artifice, without really talking much about performance . . . and so it is with The Beatles overall. Other than Paul's bass chops, we really don't talk about The Beatles as musicians: we think of Ringo as a competent drummer in spite of his limitations, we think of George as a competent guitarist, we think of all of them as effective, if unspectacular, singers.

I would make a stronger case for John. One of my favorite (top 5!) Beatles songs has always been the B-side of "Get Back", "Don't Let Me Down". Listening to it again, the arrangement and songcraft are superb, but it is John's vocals (along with Billy Preston's electric piano!) that really make the song. I think John's performances are frequently like that: combined with the direct simplicity of most of his compositions, his vocals and attack are more than effective, they are raw, emotional, and vital.

Side Four

Revolution 1 -- First, I like the single version better, though this is not bad. Second, I'm not real comfortable about the lyrics, which (à la The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again") sound like bourgeois retrenchment for a bunch of newly rich white English boys. Could be wrong about that, but I don't think so.  3/5

Honey Pie -- What is it with this half-assed music hall bullshit? 1.5/5

Savoy Truffle -- Like cheap American chocolate, an overly sweet confection that ends up being empty calories.  3/5

Cry Baby Cry -- A toss off with a catchy chorus. Meh. 3/5

Revolution 9 -- Is it any good? Who knows? Who cares? IT'S AN 8+ MINUTE TAPE COLLAGE IN THE MIDDLE OF A BEATLES RECORD! THIS ISN'T SOME HALF-ASSED BULLSHIT, THIS IS WHOLE-ASSED FUCKERY! 5/5! For what it's worth, I listen to a lot of stuff like this, and it's OK at best: an uncomfortable middle ground between Cage's randomness and Stockhausen's conceptual approach, it ends up falling short on both counts. On its own, I would give it a 2/5. In the context of a Beatles record, I will stick with 5/5. Let's go with 3/5.

Good Night -- A lullaby. Nothing more, nothing less. Gets a little bump for Ringo's vocals.  3/5

AN ACCOUNTING

I've already alluded to the fact that the White Album is the only Beatles record I've ever owned. Even then, I didn't own it when I listened to it in high school (I listened to it with my good friend John), finally buying a used cassette copy in the early 80s when I was in college. By the late 80s I had sold it off to buy some new records, and lived without it until just a couple weeks ago. I have always kept an eye open for a used copy, but with the recent vinyl boom, used copies run around $45, so I just ponied up for a new pressing at $35. After the time I've spent with the album for the purposes of this discussion, I will likely file it into my record stacks, and who knows when I will pull it out again.

Also alluded to is the idea that pop/rock double studio albums were generally considered to be indulgences, and frequently had to account for their extravagance. The Beatles clearly was indulgent by anybody's standards: by my accounting, the average rating is 3.18 out of 5 . . . this, for a record that is generally considered to be one of the greatest of the rock era, in spite of the fact that virtually everyone who discusses it acknowledges it to be full of filler (though, tellingly, there is a lot of disagreement about exactly what songs on the album constitute filler).

Is it better as a single album? Below is my edit of the album. I have not consulted any lists or ratings for this edit, it is based purely on my own accounting. It has been slightly re-sequenced, but generally follows the sequence of the original. So, you tell me: is this better? 

It's hard to deny the edit slams. It goes from being a rambling, chaotic mess to being tight as hell. Still, for my part, I'm rather fond of big sloppy messes (I am, perhaps, one of the very few who will defend The Clash's Sandinista to the bitter end). As chaotic as this is, it still seems of a piece, and it doesn't pay to hack it down. Too clever by at least half, there is still enough here to overcome the almost Olympian self-indulgence. Just don't ask me to spend this much time with any other Beatles albums, OK?