Beatles Noob needs help.
November 16, 2010 7:49 AM Subscribe
Beatles Noob question - In light of the Beatles catalog being released on iTunes today I figure now is as good a time as any to start listening.
What's the best album to start with?
What sort of music are you currently in to? They've got a pretty diverse catalog, and I'd hate to recommend what is widely regarded as their best album only to find out that you're more into upbeat pop or folk rock.
posted by muddgirl at 7:53 AM on November 16, 2010
posted by muddgirl at 7:53 AM on November 16, 2010
Abbey Road is my favorite album of all time by any artist. I've been listening to it since I was a tiny child, and it still blows my mind nearly every time I listen from start to finish, especially on headphones.
posted by something something at 7:55 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by something something at 7:55 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Beatles 1 has all their No. 1 singles in chronological order. You might give that a spin, then figure out whether you would prefer to dig deeper into the early rock 'n roll harmony Beatles, the early middle period artistically restless Beatles, the midperiod definitely-on-drugs-now Beatles, the late middle period rapidly-fracturing-but-relentlessly-inventive Beatles, or the late days tragic-poignance Beatles.
posted by Iridic at 8:02 AM on November 16, 2010 [11 favorites]
posted by Iridic at 8:02 AM on November 16, 2010 [11 favorites]
I think for a modern listener, anything Revolver or Rubber Soul probably isn't worth listening. Perhaps the best route is start with Revolver then Sgt Peppers then Magical Mystery Tour then the White Album and then Abbey Road. There's a lot of music here. Just start with Revolver and work your way up.
posted by damn dirty ape at 8:02 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by damn dirty ape at 8:02 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: @griphus - I'm into pretty much every sort of music from classical to hip hop to indie and alternative. Lately I've been listening to Interpol, Mumford and Sons, Kings of Leon, Eminem, Iron and Wine, and Fleet Foxes.
posted by AngryLlama at 8:03 AM on November 16, 2010
posted by AngryLlama at 8:03 AM on November 16, 2010
This is a tough question to answer because they went through so many distinct - and distinctly interesting - phases.
Odd suggestion: Find someplace you can spend a few hours playing through "Beatles Rock Band" (either at a friend's house or a Best Buy), and see which style(s) rub off on you that way.
(That said, Abbey Road is my personal favorite, so I would start there if the game idea doesn't appeal to you.)
posted by jbickers at 8:04 AM on November 16, 2010
Odd suggestion: Find someplace you can spend a few hours playing through "Beatles Rock Band" (either at a friend's house or a Best Buy), and see which style(s) rub off on you that way.
(That said, Abbey Road is my personal favorite, so I would start there if the game idea doesn't appeal to you.)
posted by jbickers at 8:04 AM on November 16, 2010
Revolver and Rubber Soul are my favorites, as far as albums are concerned. And also Sgt. Pepper. Those are the ones that hang together as albums, for me.
Otherwise you could cherrypick (for more $$$$) individual tracks.
posted by Danf at 8:05 AM on November 16, 2010
Otherwise you could cherrypick (for more $$$$) individual tracks.
posted by Danf at 8:05 AM on November 16, 2010
I find a lot of people nominally into the Beatles prefer either their earlier or later sound, so I might recommend Rubber Soul, which is the cusp between the two. Then you can decide if you like their poppier earlier stuff or the more experimental, later stuff.
posted by kimota at 8:06 AM on November 16, 2010
posted by kimota at 8:06 AM on November 16, 2010
At the risk of sounding like a royal snob, begin at the beginning, and go on till you come to the end: then stop.
That being said, Revolver and Rubber Soul are my favorites.
posted by theichibun at 8:07 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
That being said, Revolver and Rubber Soul are my favorites.
posted by theichibun at 8:07 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Yes, Abbey Road is truly great, and so is what is generally known as the White Album although its official title is simply The Beatles. In their later phase, the Beatles were completely redefining the genre of rock and roll, whereas in their earlier work they followed the existing conventions that had been established in the 1950's. As muddgirl has already noted, your own taste in music will influence your reaction to the Beatles, and I can't really predict whether early Beatles will appeal to you more or less than late Beatles. But their later work was their best, in my opinion.
Sometimes you have to have some background information to truly appreciate the context of a Beatles song. "Sexy Sadie" is among their most fascinating songs, and without ever mentioning him, this song is actually about the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. The song becomes much more meaningful when you know this, and know the history of the Beatles, who at one time went to India to learn about Transcendental Meditation, to which George Harrison remained devoted to the end of his days. There is still debate about whether the song "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" is actually about LSD, but whether it is or it isn't, the song remains melodically fascinating - and it is a great departure from what was previously considered rock and roll. The Beatles were the great experimentalists of the genre, which has never been the same.
posted by grizzled at 8:10 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Sometimes you have to have some background information to truly appreciate the context of a Beatles song. "Sexy Sadie" is among their most fascinating songs, and without ever mentioning him, this song is actually about the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. The song becomes much more meaningful when you know this, and know the history of the Beatles, who at one time went to India to learn about Transcendental Meditation, to which George Harrison remained devoted to the end of his days. There is still debate about whether the song "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" is actually about LSD, but whether it is or it isn't, the song remains melodically fascinating - and it is a great departure from what was previously considered rock and roll. The Beatles were the great experimentalists of the genre, which has never been the same.
posted by grizzled at 8:10 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Rubber Soul and Revolver. They are the transitional-sounding albums between their early and late stuff.
Although, if you listen to the albums, it may surprise you which songs pop up where. I grew up listening to the Beatles courtesy of my obsessed mother, but I had no conception of their musical progression. Many of the songs that I had assumed to be earlier in their catalog were actually later, and vice versa.
posted by gaspode at 8:10 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Although, if you listen to the albums, it may surprise you which songs pop up where. I grew up listening to the Beatles courtesy of my obsessed mother, but I had no conception of their musical progression. Many of the songs that I had assumed to be earlier in their catalog were actually later, and vice versa.
posted by gaspode at 8:10 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Revolver and Rubber Soul should really be seen - and heard - as a single album, much like Radiohead's Kid A and Amnesiac. Any true Beatles fan will likely give you the same advice, and for a good reason - it never got as good as the two albums, with perhaps the sole exception of the song Let it Be. Just my $0.02.
posted by dbiedny at 8:13 AM on November 16, 2010
posted by dbiedny at 8:13 AM on November 16, 2010
I agree with several of the commenters above that you should start with Rubber Soul and Revolver. If you like what you hear on those, and I can't imagine that you won't, you might want to try the Beatles 1 album of their #1 hits, so you can get a sampling of their early and late stuff, to help you decide where to go next.
Whatever you do, though, do NOT start with the White Album (aka "The Beatles"). It's got some great tracks on it, and you should absolutely listen to it at some point, but it's not a good place to start listening to them, assuming you want to judge them fairly. And when you do listen to it, skip "Revolution 9." Just trust me.
posted by cerebus19 at 8:13 AM on November 16, 2010
Whatever you do, though, do NOT start with the White Album (aka "The Beatles"). It's got some great tracks on it, and you should absolutely listen to it at some point, but it's not a good place to start listening to them, assuming you want to judge them fairly. And when you do listen to it, skip "Revolution 9." Just trust me.
posted by cerebus19 at 8:13 AM on November 16, 2010
I'd start with Revolution # 9, immediately followed by Mister Moonlight.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:15 AM on November 16, 2010 [4 favorites]
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:15 AM on November 16, 2010 [4 favorites]
theichibun has it: start at the beginning, end at the end. Their earlier sound can't really be beat and it sets you up for their transition. It's really fun to listen to all of their albums in a row and to hear their sound change over time.
So, I'd start with Please Please Me and With the Beatles.
Of course, you probably can't go wrong starting with Rubber Soul, either, but I would advocate starting at the start.
Don't start with Sgt. Pepper's.
As a side note, I don't know if iTunes is selling the British or American versions of the albums, or some awful conglomeration of both (which is what a lot of the CD releases tend to do, so beware; the CDs also mess with the order of the tracks a fair amount) but if you can, stick with the British versions of the albums.
posted by k8lin at 8:17 AM on November 16, 2010
So, I'd start with Please Please Me and With the Beatles.
Of course, you probably can't go wrong starting with Rubber Soul, either, but I would advocate starting at the start.
Don't start with Sgt. Pepper's.
As a side note, I don't know if iTunes is selling the British or American versions of the albums, or some awful conglomeration of both (which is what a lot of the CD releases tend to do, so beware; the CDs also mess with the order of the tracks a fair amount) but if you can, stick with the British versions of the albums.
posted by k8lin at 8:17 AM on November 16, 2010
Outlier recommendation for A Hard Day's Night. It's the first of their records to contain all original compositions and IMHO it has the most consistent songwriting. It's one of the maybe two or three records that I'll sing along with from beginning to end.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:19 AM on November 16, 2010
posted by Joe Beese at 8:19 AM on November 16, 2010
If I could do it again, or could un-hear all the songs I've heard before, I'd totally do it chronologically, just to get an idea of their development over time. And that is definitely the way to do it.
That said, it is generally recognized that Revolver is the "best' album, while Abbey Road is the "favorite" album.
posted by General Malaise at 8:22 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
That said, it is generally recognized that Revolver is the "best' album, while Abbey Road is the "favorite" album.
posted by General Malaise at 8:22 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
iTunes is selling the British versions of the albums. They've been the standard on digital releases since 1987, with the American versions of their albums from 1964 and 1965 available as box sets since 2006.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:26 AM on November 16, 2010
posted by kirkaracha at 8:26 AM on November 16, 2010
Revolver or Rubber Soul. White Album is great too.
Otherwise start off with the "red" and "blue" double album. It covers from 1964-1970. That's where I fell in love.
posted by stormpooper at 8:29 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]
Otherwise start off with the "red" and "blue" double album. It covers from 1964-1970. That's where I fell in love.
posted by stormpooper at 8:29 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]
The US "Magical Mystery Tour" LP, which was the original UK double 7" plus related singles, is my favorite Beatles record. If you favor the psychedelic stuff in any way start there. Even "All You Need Is Love" - easily the lamest Beatles song - can't ruin it. There are songs ("Blue Jay Way," "Flying," etc.) that don't get played on classic rock radio that will surprise you very happily.
I think Revolver is overrated as a McCartney hot period. "Tomorrow Never Knows" alone makes it worth the price of admission, though.
(These are all opinions, you can't really go wrong, have fun, etc.)
posted by mintcake! at 8:29 AM on November 16, 2010
I think Revolver is overrated as a McCartney hot period. "Tomorrow Never Knows" alone makes it worth the price of admission, though.
(These are all opinions, you can't really go wrong, have fun, etc.)
posted by mintcake! at 8:29 AM on November 16, 2010
Get the Anthology DVD series and then decide on the content of the years of their releases you are drawn to and begin.
And of course you could just sit and watch A Hard Day's Night and be swept into a time long gone where talent and direction combined to make, as Roger Ebert has said, "The Citizen Kane of Rock movies".
I miss those times.
posted by Freedomboy at 8:35 AM on November 16, 2010
And of course you could just sit and watch A Hard Day's Night and be swept into a time long gone where talent and direction combined to make, as Roger Ebert has said, "The Citizen Kane of Rock movies".
I miss those times.
posted by Freedomboy at 8:35 AM on November 16, 2010
I would start with Revolver and A Hard Day's Night - I think at least two albums are necessary since they went through so many phases. Revolver's my personal favorite, and probably the height of their creativity and innovation as a cohesive group. The early stuff is really great and essential too, especially for an introduction - at the very least, rent the film version of A Hard Day's Night.
Most of their later work is really good too, but works like The White Album will have much less of a cohesive sound as the individual members each increasingly developed distinctive styles of their own.
posted by susanvance at 8:36 AM on November 16, 2010
Most of their later work is really good too, but works like The White Album will have much less of a cohesive sound as the individual members each increasingly developed distinctive styles of their own.
posted by susanvance at 8:36 AM on November 16, 2010
You know, it would be SO COOL to have the opportunity to hear and appreciate the Beatles as from the beginning. Listen in order of record release date, broken down further by starting with the singles in order of their release date before listening to the entire record.
I might actually just go do this for fun.
posted by motsque at 8:41 AM on November 16, 2010
I might actually just go do this for fun.
posted by motsque at 8:41 AM on November 16, 2010
Also, please note that, at least until The White Album, the mono versions are the ones the band worked on. The stereo versions, which were still considered a gimmick, were left to the engineers.
The early albums in particular suffer terribly from having the vocals crammed into one channel and the instruments in the other.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:43 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]
The early albums in particular suffer terribly from having the vocals crammed into one channel and the instruments in the other.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:43 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]
Agree with Joe Beese: I prefer the mono versions.
I grew up on Rubber Soul, played endlessly on my dad's 8 track. Damn.
That was the last record my parents bought as they found them a bit too 'out there' after that. heh. Abbey Road and Magical Mystery Tour are my other top picks.
posted by wingless_angel at 8:46 AM on November 16, 2010
I grew up on Rubber Soul, played endlessly on my dad's 8 track. Damn.
That was the last record my parents bought as they found them a bit too 'out there' after that. heh. Abbey Road and Magical Mystery Tour are my other top picks.
posted by wingless_angel at 8:46 AM on November 16, 2010
Joe Beese is right. Most of those stereo mixes are travesties. I bought the mono box set, and it sounds soooo good.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:47 AM on November 16, 2010
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:47 AM on November 16, 2010
The red album is what I grew up on -- the very poppy, happy, early 60s rock sound. I still love it but didn't really know anything about their later work, except for a few songs here and there. My partner introduced me to the White Album a few years ago and now I LOVE the later stuff. The White Album in particular is a good mix of their older sound and their more experimental side. So I would buy the red album, the blue album, then the White Album. Enjoy!
posted by pised at 9:14 AM on November 16, 2010
posted by pised at 9:14 AM on November 16, 2010
Yeah, this is all getting pretty nerdy for noob-advice. Get the red and blue compilations.
posted by rhizome at 9:17 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by rhizome at 9:17 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
My vote's for Revolver.
You should also be sure to listen to them on good speakers at a decent volume. A lot of what I love about The Beatles is the nuanced, dimensional stuff that's hard to hear on crappy headphones. I listened to Revolver on a cassette player on loop throughout my childhood but heard it in a totally new way in a large (but quiet) coffee shop with lots of quality speakers.
posted by emilyd22222 at 9:30 AM on November 16, 2010
You should also be sure to listen to them on good speakers at a decent volume. A lot of what I love about The Beatles is the nuanced, dimensional stuff that's hard to hear on crappy headphones. I listened to Revolver on a cassette player on loop throughout my childhood but heard it in a totally new way in a large (but quiet) coffee shop with lots of quality speakers.
posted by emilyd22222 at 9:30 AM on November 16, 2010
Really, all or any and you'll be OK. I'd prefer all.
posted by cccorlew at 9:46 AM on November 16, 2010
posted by cccorlew at 9:46 AM on November 16, 2010
Bah to all of these people swearing to Revolver and Rubber Soul. I started with Sgt Pepper's on a beat-up 8-track that was kept in our horse barn. I'd say leave it to chance. Pick six albums, number them, roll a die. Abbey Road, White, Revolver, Rubber Soul, Sgt Peppers and Let It Be should be your six on the list
posted by Mister Fabulous at 10:01 AM on November 16, 2010
posted by Mister Fabulous at 10:01 AM on November 16, 2010
Why start with an album?
The Beatles were a great singles band. For their entire career they issued amazing 45s that did not appear on proper Beatles albums until post-mortem anthologies came out (or sometimes on faux albums issued by Capitol). Many singles were even "double A sides" like Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane, but there were also lots of hidden gems on the B sides too.
iTunes is a medium that favors singles in many ways. The CD collections Past Masters Vol 1 and 2 and half of Magical Mystery Tour gather all the non-album singles. Start there and maybe it'll be closer to the experience of folks who heard "the new single from the Beatles!" on the radio.
posted by quarterframer at 10:08 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
The Beatles were a great singles band. For their entire career they issued amazing 45s that did not appear on proper Beatles albums until post-mortem anthologies came out (or sometimes on faux albums issued by Capitol). Many singles were even "double A sides" like Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane, but there were also lots of hidden gems on the B sides too.
iTunes is a medium that favors singles in many ways. The CD collections Past Masters Vol 1 and 2 and half of Magical Mystery Tour gather all the non-album singles. Start there and maybe it'll be closer to the experience of folks who heard "the new single from the Beatles!" on the radio.
posted by quarterframer at 10:08 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Another vote for Beatles 1, which is how I evolved from a Beatles neophyte into the obsessed fanatic I am today. (Personally, I love Let it Be - underrated and absolutely fantastic. But that's probably not a good place to start.)
The Beatles are so remarkable because their entire oeuvre really tells their story, in a way I'd never encountered in any other group. The albums have their own spellbinding, comic, tragic, narrative arc that almost seems like the story of the 60s, not just of their music and their personal lives. The 1 album is a great introduction to that story and sets the stage for going in deeper.
(GEORGE IS THE COOLEST BEATLE)
posted by bookgirl18 at 10:30 AM on November 16, 2010
The Beatles are so remarkable because their entire oeuvre really tells their story, in a way I'd never encountered in any other group. The albums have their own spellbinding, comic, tragic, narrative arc that almost seems like the story of the 60s, not just of their music and their personal lives. The 1 album is a great introduction to that story and sets the stage for going in deeper.
(GEORGE IS THE COOLEST BEATLE)
posted by bookgirl18 at 10:30 AM on November 16, 2010
I agree with the posters suggesting you start with the Red Album, and then move on to the Blue. This is how I got into the Beatles, and it's a fantastic overview of their entire career.
The Red and Blue albums are both double-disc compilations, so they are expansive enough to avoid being cursory overviews. You'll definitely end up with enough familiarity to decide if you prefer late, middle, early, late-middle, early-late, or whatever other Beatles-nerd distinctions you'll then be able to make. They also have the advantages of including songs from singles and EPs that weren't collected until the Past Masters compilations in the 80s, so they will in some ways give you more of their highlights than a strict, albums-only approach, as some of their biggest hits didn't appear on any albums.
It's my hope that the compilations will convince you that the chronological approach is best. While you'll see a lot of music nerds championing Revolver or Rubber Soul, I think you'll see that the Beatles never really made a bad album (with the possible exception of Yellow Submarine, which isn't really so bad as it is extraneous or maybe redundant). If I could do it all over again, I'd start with Please Please Me, and listen to it until I started craving some more Beatles. I'd then move on to With The Beatles, et cetera.
All of these albums stand well on their own, but taking each in the larger context of the group's development as musicians and songwriters adds force, especially to the later work. You said earlier that you were a fan of Iron and Wine. I know that while The Shepherd's Dog is a fantastic album, probably the best so far, I appreciate it more because I'm familiar with Iron and Wine's progression from the stripped-down The Creek Drank the Cradle, to the middle period of Our Endless Numbered Days, to today. Similarly, when I listen to early Iron and Wine, I can hear the seeds of The Shepherd's Dog's complexity, which deepens my appreciation of Sam Beam's entire oeuvre.
The Beatles recorded music together for roughly the same amount of time as Iron and Wine has, and they went from I Want To Hold Your Hand and She Loves You to Across The Universe and A Day In The Life. It's one of the most remarkable progressions in pop music, and I'm jealous that you're about to experience it for the first time, in whatever fashion.
TL;DR: Tentatively chronologically at first; then, ideally, beginning to end.
posted by charleskinbote at 10:34 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
The Red and Blue albums are both double-disc compilations, so they are expansive enough to avoid being cursory overviews. You'll definitely end up with enough familiarity to decide if you prefer late, middle, early, late-middle, early-late, or whatever other Beatles-nerd distinctions you'll then be able to make. They also have the advantages of including songs from singles and EPs that weren't collected until the Past Masters compilations in the 80s, so they will in some ways give you more of their highlights than a strict, albums-only approach, as some of their biggest hits didn't appear on any albums.
It's my hope that the compilations will convince you that the chronological approach is best. While you'll see a lot of music nerds championing Revolver or Rubber Soul, I think you'll see that the Beatles never really made a bad album (with the possible exception of Yellow Submarine, which isn't really so bad as it is extraneous or maybe redundant). If I could do it all over again, I'd start with Please Please Me, and listen to it until I started craving some more Beatles. I'd then move on to With The Beatles, et cetera.
All of these albums stand well on their own, but taking each in the larger context of the group's development as musicians and songwriters adds force, especially to the later work. You said earlier that you were a fan of Iron and Wine. I know that while The Shepherd's Dog is a fantastic album, probably the best so far, I appreciate it more because I'm familiar with Iron and Wine's progression from the stripped-down The Creek Drank the Cradle, to the middle period of Our Endless Numbered Days, to today. Similarly, when I listen to early Iron and Wine, I can hear the seeds of The Shepherd's Dog's complexity, which deepens my appreciation of Sam Beam's entire oeuvre.
The Beatles recorded music together for roughly the same amount of time as Iron and Wine has, and they went from I Want To Hold Your Hand and She Loves You to Across The Universe and A Day In The Life. It's one of the most remarkable progressions in pop music, and I'm jealous that you're about to experience it for the first time, in whatever fashion.
TL;DR: Tentatively chronologically at first; then, ideally, beginning to end.
posted by charleskinbote at 10:34 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Nthing Rubber Soul and Revolver for all the reasons people said.
posted by xenophile at 10:56 AM on November 16, 2010
posted by xenophile at 10:56 AM on November 16, 2010
Another Rubber Soul/Revolver vote here. Certainly, the excellent Red and Blue compilations are vital to have and will give you the sweep of their career, but those two albums as albums are essential both as individual albums and as understanding the genius (and I don't use the term lightly) of the Beatles as a group.
GEORGE FOREVER
posted by scody at 12:14 PM on November 16, 2010
GEORGE FOREVER
posted by scody at 12:14 PM on November 16, 2010
hmm, sorry, there's an extra "as albums" in that last sentence there. Any talk of the Beatles makes me go all giddy and unable to proofread.
posted by scody at 12:16 PM on November 16, 2010
posted by scody at 12:16 PM on November 16, 2010
I find that, as time passes, I have new parts of the Beatles catalog I prefer.
As a kid I dug them in a "singles" sense - I had certain songs I loved, but never really listened to full albums. I was mainly into Paul songs, for whatever reason (I also had an unhealthy obsession with While My Guitar Gently Weeps). I think this was facilitated by either or both of the Red Album/Blue Album setup charleskinbote mentions.
Then, as a teenager, I got into certain albums. I was an affected and pretentious teenager, so it was Revolver, The White Album, and Abbey Road. Of course. Though obviously those are fantastic albums, among the best albums ever recorded in the rock idiom, by anyone.
Now that I'm a lot more secure with myself, I find that I love the early pop stuff more and more. I've also recently enjoyed listening to Sgt. Pepper as an album, as opposed to appreciating each song independently as I did as a kid. (my dad sung me Yellow Submarine as a lullaby!) And then I like to contrast it with The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds, because I'm still an affected little rock dork deep inside.
posted by Sara C. at 12:23 PM on November 16, 2010
As a kid I dug them in a "singles" sense - I had certain songs I loved, but never really listened to full albums. I was mainly into Paul songs, for whatever reason (I also had an unhealthy obsession with While My Guitar Gently Weeps). I think this was facilitated by either or both of the Red Album/Blue Album setup charleskinbote mentions.
Then, as a teenager, I got into certain albums. I was an affected and pretentious teenager, so it was Revolver, The White Album, and Abbey Road. Of course. Though obviously those are fantastic albums, among the best albums ever recorded in the rock idiom, by anyone.
Now that I'm a lot more secure with myself, I find that I love the early pop stuff more and more. I've also recently enjoyed listening to Sgt. Pepper as an album, as opposed to appreciating each song independently as I did as a kid. (my dad sung me Yellow Submarine as a lullaby!) And then I like to contrast it with The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds, because I'm still an affected little rock dork deep inside.
posted by Sara C. at 12:23 PM on November 16, 2010
Aye, your answer is contained within your question: Help! I can't believe it's not getting any love in this thread so far.
posted by tetralix at 12:29 PM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by tetralix at 12:29 PM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Wow, I did not think Rubber Soul would have so many fans. (This is a funny thread.) I don't love Rubber Soul, and in fact prefer almost every other Beatles album to it. I know a lot of people who feel that way, but maybe that's just my circle.
Revolver is a great album, but I have to give the hat tip to Abbey Road or Sgt Pepper, which are IMO the most coherent single-album experiences. The White Album is great but it's a bit of a mess.
I got started with the Beatles listening to Let It Be, which most people will say is a tragedy. Although the acoustic cuts of it on Anthologies are a cool way to get into the Beatles too.
posted by zvs at 1:49 PM on November 16, 2010
Revolver is a great album, but I have to give the hat tip to Abbey Road or Sgt Pepper, which are IMO the most coherent single-album experiences. The White Album is great but it's a bit of a mess.
I got started with the Beatles listening to Let It Be, which most people will say is a tragedy. Although the acoustic cuts of it on Anthologies are a cool way to get into the Beatles too.
posted by zvs at 1:49 PM on November 16, 2010
You might want to get the red and blue (best-of) albums, listen to them, and start with the era you like best. For me, that was the blue album, and the first studio album I picked up was Abbey Road.
From there, I worked my way back, which was good because I really didn't like the early stuff at first. Now, my favourite album is Revlover, but that doesn't necessarily mean I would recommend it as a starting point. Also, don't feel pressured to listen to the whole white album at once the first time. It's long (double album) and didn't hold my attention at first.
Enjoy!
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 2:37 PM on November 16, 2010
From there, I worked my way back, which was good because I really didn't like the early stuff at first. Now, my favourite album is Revlover, but that doesn't necessarily mean I would recommend it as a starting point. Also, don't feel pressured to listen to the whole white album at once the first time. It's long (double album) and didn't hold my attention at first.
Enjoy!
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 2:37 PM on November 16, 2010
Rubber Soul (the American version) is my earliest musical memory, and is a really great, folk-influenced, cohesive record. It's my favorite, but I wouldn't start with it (especially since it looks like iTunes only has the British release. Still good, but a different record experientially). I would start at the beginning, and get the full feeling of how the group evolved over time. So start with Please Please Me. It has their lovely cover of Arthur Alexander's "Anna", and the early trippy tune "There's a Place", both favorites of mine. (Sadly, they don't have Meet the Beatles either. Second album released in the US, it starts off in the best way possible, with "I Want to Hold Your Hand". It just gets better from there.)
Do not start with Sergeant Pepper or Abbey Road. You need to know where they've been to see where they've gone, IMO.
posted by oneirodynia at 2:38 PM on November 16, 2010
Do not start with Sergeant Pepper or Abbey Road. You need to know where they've been to see where they've gone, IMO.
posted by oneirodynia at 2:38 PM on November 16, 2010
Outlier recommendation for A Hard Day's Night. It's the first of their records to contain all original compositions and IMHO it has the most consistent songwriting.
Yeah, that's what I wanted to say. But the red and blue albums were my introduction to the Beatles, I'd recommend those.
posted by marxchivist at 3:21 PM on November 16, 2010
Yeah, that's what I wanted to say. But the red and blue albums were my introduction to the Beatles, I'd recommend those.
posted by marxchivist at 3:21 PM on November 16, 2010
Nthing the Red and Blue compilations. When I was a kid I absolutely adored them and thought they were all the Beatles had ever done. Even now, they sound like albums--the tracks flow together beautifully. The chronological grouping makes each disc sound cohesive, and makes the compilations a good introduction to how the Beatles' sound developed.
posted by randomname25 at 4:33 PM on November 16, 2010
posted by randomname25 at 4:33 PM on November 16, 2010
I also started years ago with the Red and Blue album, though I far preferred the Blue.
Having said that, the answer is Abbey Road.
posted by wittgenstein at 8:11 PM on November 16, 2010
Having said that, the answer is Abbey Road.
posted by wittgenstein at 8:11 PM on November 16, 2010
Actually, you can go wrong. When I first decided to try out the Beatles in college, I checked out The White Album because, hey, it's self-titled, so it makes sense, right? A few songs were catchy, but a lot of it was out there. It didn't even have the normal version of "Revolution."
A year or two later I tried out "Beatles 1" and it was so much more accessible and a perfect gateway drug. Then I went through each album from the library more or less in order. "Please Please Me" has a lot of "older" covers that may or may not be your taste. "With the Beatles" has more of a Motown flavor. "Hard Day's Night" is their first all-original album, solid pop-rock stuff. "Beatles For Sale" has some great stuff but is hit-or-miss. Then things change a lot.
You could go with the Red and Blue, which is basically a two-disc greatest hits, but about half the tracks are album cuts. If you end up being a huge fan, you'll get most of those full albums anyway. If you just get Beatles 1, you have most of the non-album singles, so there will be minimal crossover.
Either hits option will give you a good overview of their career. If you just pick an album or two, you'll only get stuff from a specific point in their creative arc. Congrats, you're about to take your first step in a larger world...
posted by TheSecretDecoderRing at 9:49 PM on November 16, 2010
A year or two later I tried out "Beatles 1" and it was so much more accessible and a perfect gateway drug. Then I went through each album from the library more or less in order. "Please Please Me" has a lot of "older" covers that may or may not be your taste. "With the Beatles" has more of a Motown flavor. "Hard Day's Night" is their first all-original album, solid pop-rock stuff. "Beatles For Sale" has some great stuff but is hit-or-miss. Then things change a lot.
You could go with the Red and Blue, which is basically a two-disc greatest hits, but about half the tracks are album cuts. If you end up being a huge fan, you'll get most of those full albums anyway. If you just get Beatles 1, you have most of the non-album singles, so there will be minimal crossover.
Either hits option will give you a good overview of their career. If you just pick an album or two, you'll only get stuff from a specific point in their creative arc. Congrats, you're about to take your first step in a larger world...
posted by TheSecretDecoderRing at 9:49 PM on November 16, 2010
Start with the Red & Blue albums. That way you'll get a sense of what styles of songs can be found on each regular album, e.g. blazing rock & roll on the "Please Please Me" album, wider varieties of pop on the "Help!" album, drug-influenced musical experimentation on "Sgt. Pepper...", etc. The Beatles' singles, with a few exceptions, are not found on the regular albums, so you'll also be able to enjoy the radio hits right off the bat.
posted by frodisaur at 10:21 PM on November 16, 2010
posted by frodisaur at 10:21 PM on November 16, 2010
Really the only way to go wrong is to listen to the Yellow Submarine album first, as it's absolutely their weakest by far and side 2 is all orchestral compositions from the film (conducted by George Martin, I believe). If I was just discovering them for the first time, I'd probably start with the first album, Meet The Beatles (or Beat The Meatles, as we used to call it in grade school) and just move along chronologically, listening to each album in the order in which they were released. I finally collected their entire catalog on CD a few years ago and did this very thing, and it was a very rewarding experience. Except for Yellow Submarine, which I ended up giving to my niece who was 4 years old at the time.
posted by motown missile at 10:25 PM on November 16, 2010
posted by motown missile at 10:25 PM on November 16, 2010
I finally collected their entire catalog on CD a few years ago and did this very thing.
What, no snarky remark about the remasters coming out right after you complete your collection? I'm glad I only had about a third of the older CDs.
AngryLlama: If you're not intent on getting strictly mp3s, you might want to shop around for those remastered CDs. I'm not sure how much of it is the holidays, and how much of it is Apple competition, but Amazon has the albums for $8. The Red and Blue are $13 each.
You may have seen a list of their main albums already, but just to clarify, the first few albums had US and UK editions. The UK are the "official," readily available versions (in the US also). "Meet the Beatles" is a US.
Also, "Yellow Submarine" (and "Magical Mystery Tour") are more or less EPs, and aren't really essential listening yet. And to add to the confusion, the song "Yellow Submarine" first appeared on the Revolver album.
I'm not even gonna go into the mono/stereo debate.
posted by TheSecretDecoderRing at 10:43 PM on November 16, 2010
What, no snarky remark about the remasters coming out right after you complete your collection? I'm glad I only had about a third of the older CDs.
AngryLlama: If you're not intent on getting strictly mp3s, you might want to shop around for those remastered CDs. I'm not sure how much of it is the holidays, and how much of it is Apple competition, but Amazon has the albums for $8. The Red and Blue are $13 each.
You may have seen a list of their main albums already, but just to clarify, the first few albums had US and UK editions. The UK are the "official," readily available versions (in the US also). "Meet the Beatles" is a US.
Also, "Yellow Submarine" (and "Magical Mystery Tour") are more or less EPs, and aren't really essential listening yet. And to add to the confusion, the song "Yellow Submarine" first appeared on the Revolver album.
I'm not even gonna go into the mono/stereo debate.
posted by TheSecretDecoderRing at 10:43 PM on November 16, 2010
The album "Hey Jude" (or "The Beatles Again") is also pretty much EP length but well worth listening to.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 10:55 PM on November 16, 2010
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 10:55 PM on November 16, 2010
Response by poster: Wow, thanks for all the suggestions and comments guys!
I thought about getting the Blue or Red compilation but I suppose I'm a purist because I don't like singles; I like full albums. In the end I went with Revolver and am loving it. I've been listening to it yesterday and now have to plan on the next Beatles album I get...
posted by AngryLlama at 2:15 PM on November 17, 2010
I thought about getting the Blue or Red compilation but I suppose I'm a purist because I don't like singles; I like full albums. In the end I went with Revolver and am loving it. I've been listening to it yesterday and now have to plan on the next Beatles album I get...
posted by AngryLlama at 2:15 PM on November 17, 2010
Re "purism" and album vs. single -- early on, the Beatles were very much a "singles" sort of group; or really, rock was firmly ensconced in the "singles" model of distribution. Obviously the Red/Blue collections, One, etc. include songs from their entire repertoire, not only the singles phase. But be careful about shoehorning them into a certain style of music listening.
posted by Sara C. at 2:24 PM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Sara C. at 2:24 PM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]
Re "purism" and album vs. single -- early on, the Beatles were very much a "singles" sort of group; or really, rock was firmly ensconced in the "singles" model of distribution.
Yes, this is an excellent point -- the first several Beatles albums weren't really conceived of as albums the same way we think about albums today. Till around 1965-66, pop/rock albums were generally designed to be collections of singles that were simply connected by additional songs -- hence how "non-canonical" Beatles albums were released in the U.S., such as Yesterday and Today, which were really just bits and pieces of various British albums, as well as why some of the "canonical" albums up through Revolver were released in the U.S. with slightly altered track listings. (This view of rock albums was different from the status of the album in jazz or more traditional popular music -- for example, Frank Sinatra's concept albums on Capitol starting in the mid-'50s or Kind of Blue by Miles Davis in 1959. But that conception of an album as a complete work in and of itself required a kind of "music as art/musician as artist" status that rock didn't have in the 1950s or early 1960s.)
This began to shift in the mid-'60s as musicians began to view both the recording process and the album itself in a different light (which in turn led to a massive change in how popular music was marketed and distributed). The Beatles were at the center of this, along with a couple of other artists whose approach to albums were evolving at the same moment, particularly Bob Dylan (Highway 61 Revisited in 1965 and Blonde on Blonde in '66) and the Beach Boys (Pet Sounds in '66). So part of what you're hearing when you listen to Revolver -- and isn't it glorious? -- isn't just the evolution of the Beatles, but the evolution of an entire art form and industry.
/gets of Beatles soapbox
posted by scody at 4:24 PM on November 17, 2010 [3 favorites]
Yes, this is an excellent point -- the first several Beatles albums weren't really conceived of as albums the same way we think about albums today. Till around 1965-66, pop/rock albums were generally designed to be collections of singles that were simply connected by additional songs -- hence how "non-canonical" Beatles albums were released in the U.S., such as Yesterday and Today, which were really just bits and pieces of various British albums, as well as why some of the "canonical" albums up through Revolver were released in the U.S. with slightly altered track listings. (This view of rock albums was different from the status of the album in jazz or more traditional popular music -- for example, Frank Sinatra's concept albums on Capitol starting in the mid-'50s or Kind of Blue by Miles Davis in 1959. But that conception of an album as a complete work in and of itself required a kind of "music as art/musician as artist" status that rock didn't have in the 1950s or early 1960s.)
This began to shift in the mid-'60s as musicians began to view both the recording process and the album itself in a different light (which in turn led to a massive change in how popular music was marketed and distributed). The Beatles were at the center of this, along with a couple of other artists whose approach to albums were evolving at the same moment, particularly Bob Dylan (Highway 61 Revisited in 1965 and Blonde on Blonde in '66) and the Beach Boys (Pet Sounds in '66). So part of what you're hearing when you listen to Revolver -- and isn't it glorious? -- isn't just the evolution of the Beatles, but the evolution of an entire art form and industry.
/gets of Beatles soapbox
posted by scody at 4:24 PM on November 17, 2010 [3 favorites]
oh, and to chime back in: I do want to add my voice to those championing the movie A Hard Day's Night. The opening credits sequence alone will knock your socks off.
posted by scody at 4:39 PM on November 17, 2010
posted by scody at 4:39 PM on November 17, 2010
I suppose I'm a purist because I don't like singles; I like full albums.
Just to nth...
If you only get the full albums you will miss out on some of the most iconic songs, because they just weren't on an album.
posted by gaspode at 5:40 AM on November 18, 2010
Just to nth...
If you only get the full albums you will miss out on some of the most iconic songs, because they just weren't on an album.
posted by gaspode at 5:40 AM on November 18, 2010
« Older Help me transport a pie on Thanksgiving! | how to make a water container with todays news? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
A lot of people are going to say Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, but I think you need to work your way up to being able to really appreciate that one.
posted by griphus at 7:52 AM on November 16, 2010