[7OX]⋙ PDF Free Revolution in the Head "Beatles" Records and the Sixties Ian MacDonald 9780712662086 Books

Revolution in the Head "Beatles" Records and the Sixties Ian MacDonald 9780712662086 Books

Download As PDF : Revolution in the Head "Beatles" Records and the Sixties Ian MacDonald 9780712662086 Books

Revolution in the Head "Beatles" Records and the Sixties Ian MacDonald 9780712662086 Books

Very wordy and WAY overly analytical. You would think MacDonald is a direct descendant of Freud himself. The detail regarding actual recordings is fun to read. Yet despite all the detail and the overly long psychoanalysis, the author left out a key song for some bizarre reason: Sexy Sadie. Sexy Sadie is completely ignored here without explanation. For a guy with an obsession for detail including all kinds of unreleased tracts, obscure recordings and an ego to rant about every song in their catalog, I'm at a loss for this glaring omission. I found it odd too, that MacDonald found so much fault with the bulk of the Beatles' catalog. He denigrates it with brio and over-analyses everything to the point that it becomes a tediously predictable exercise in psycho-bashing most of the their music. I wouldn't recommend this book to anybody.


Tags : Revolution in the Head: Beatles Records and the Sixties [Ian MacDonald] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.,Ian MacDonald,Revolution in the Head: "Beatles" Records and the Sixties,Pimlico,0712662081,mon0001158997,United Kingdom, Great Britain,Music,c 1960 to c 1970,Biography: film, television & music,Biography: general,Cultural studies,Rock & pop,Social history,Vocal music

Revolution in the Head "Beatles" Records and the Sixties Ian MacDonald 9780712662086 Books Reviews

I've read all things Beatles and yet Ian MacDonald offers information and perspectives that are new. He characterizes various tracks as responding to other musicians that I found believable John listens to Dylan and responds, Paul listens to the Beach Boys and responds, John listens to Paul or Paul to John and responds, George is on his own planet and responds, and so on. The social and cultural context also plays a role in his telling of the story behind the tracks; flower power, fashions, the changing nature of relationships, Indian philosophies, Vietnam war, and more.

I especially liked how sharply critical the author is of efforts he finds less than the Beatles best. He is explicit about tracks he thinks the Beatles mostly mailed in. Is there any other explanation for 'Don't Pass Me By' or 'Piggies?'? What's also interesting are tracks he said really engaged the Beatles, when they dug in hard and did incredible amounts of work to get it right. It's well known that they invested hugely in 'A Day in the Life,' but I did not know "Happiness is a Warm Gun' was one of their favorites they doted on. 'Tomorrow Never Knows' and 'Because' also really engaged them. Go figure.

Mostly, the Beatles emerge as craftsmen who for their early albums would do 25 takes to get a song right, or spend months and months in the studio (Sgt. Pepper). Hard work. That their songs were less and less likely to have 'pop' structures and more 'rock' structures (think 'Hard Days Night' versus 'She's So Heavy') because of drugs (pop songs requiring more attention to melody, harmony, and lyrics) is an arguable point, but it's a fair one to make.
Deserving of its reputation as one of the best Beatle books of all time. The late Ian MacDonald writes with opinionated erudition about a band he knows and loves. Which is not to say that he does not bring a very critical ear to their songs. You may not always agree, but MacDonald sets up a real conversation with his readers and fellow fans. This is as good a companion to listening to the Beatles as you could wish for. It has certainly renewed my pleasure and understanding of a body of work that remains unequaled in pop music.
The very first part of this book is a brilliant dissertation on the meaning of the 60s cultural revolution. Truly one of the finest I've ever read. From there this is simply a description of Beatles' songs, who wrote what, who played on what and how long it took to record. If you're looking for an index of their songs then this is the book for you. But after that brilliant opening the rest is simply a highly detail list.

Within the lists of songs the author, in a manner that is sometimes arrogant, gives his opinion of some of the songs that doesn't seem to fit in with the encyclopedic nature of the bulk of this book.

It's a good one to keep around when you're having that Beatles debate with friends and family or you hear a song and you're curious about its origins. Otherwise not much new here.
let me start by saying Mark Lewinson wrote a better book. That's my opinion. Much of the material in Revolution has obviously been lifted from Lewinson's work. Now, lay people might think that Revolution might be absolutely brilliant. I think McDonald writes really well and can hold your attention with his incendiary opinions as well as is obvious perfunctory knowledge of music. What I mean is he certainly understands musical terminology and he also knows a bit about recording techniques fromthe 60s. When it comes to that he knows more than I do. I was born in 1955. It's also very clear to me that he is not a fan of The Beatles and he's completely enamored with his opinions and the style in which he writes them. Look, I know a bit about music and songwriting. I did a lot of sessions work with some major well-known Talent back in the 70s and 80s. I played keyboards with many of those same bands and people on tour for many years. I'm mentioning this in my review only so  the people who read this understand that I am not a neophyte. I know and understand music, great songwriting and superlative production. I also know garbage. I've been involved with both throughout the years. I need to mention that anybody who believes that God Only Knows by The Beach Boys is the greatest pop song ever written has a lot to learn. It's a Wonderful song, and it's beautiful. The harmonies are ethereal. Is it the best pop song ever written? That is debatable and I don't know if the author is still with us or not but if he is I could debate him on that subject and I would win. The Beatles wrote some garbage too. Everybody does. Who knows why. Perhaps they thought it would fly and it didn't. Perhaps they were under a deadline which they were in many instances and had to crank something out real quickly. Perhaps and very likely the Beatles were under the influence and put out something that many either didn't understand, or were  playing badly because when you're under the influence of hallucinogenics you certainly lack a lot in the perspective department. When McDonald comes out and says that "Something" wasn't great song because of the lack of a middle eight then he needs to have his head examined. Who says you need to have a middle eight to have a great song? My guess would be that half the Beatles catalog was void of a middle 8 or Bridge as they call it today and who cares. Can you listen to it? Was the melody beautiful? Did it have a message? Did the words mean anything? Did they have to mean anything? "Something" happens to be one of the covered songs of all time. Remember, we're not talking about Sinatra singing Gershwin. We're talking about a form of music that had never been done before. They created their genre. Back to God only knows. Was that a beautiful song? Absolutely! Were the words beautiful and meaningful? YOU BET. Do I love that song? God only knows I do-). The love of music is subjective. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I don't believe it's fair for an author to assess a songwriters work from afar and on top of that talk about a song that was written by a person who he thought didn't like or didn't trust women. You can't beat down a beautiful song that was written by somebody that was in a bad way at the time when it came to dealing with the opposite sex. How do we psychologically analyze John Lennon? Is or was McDonald a licensed mental health counselor? Does a man's frame of mind make his writing any less relevant or poignant? I don't think so. In my mind I believe that McDonald had a real problem with rock music and with The Beatles. There cannot be another explanation for his critiques. And finally to my point. In my mind this book was a hatchet job and nothing more. You can't take a catalog of 200 + songs written by arguably the greatest... ....... .. innovators of all time and dislike 70% of the work. Actually you can but that does not make you right. His work needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Having said all that I rated This book as highly as I did because it was a fun read. It's like I learned years ago. Take what you want and leave the rest. I left most of it, but, notwithstanding I enjoyed reading it because it's an just an opinion and we're all entitled our own opinions. Just because the writer knows what a Leslie is and understands ADT, doesn't mean he's an expert. In talking about the Beatles and expressing his idea that their lyrics and song construction was not as good as it should be because, to paraphrase him they were they were extremely taken with themselves is exactly my thought about McDonald. He writes as though he really believes that he is the absolute definitive expert on The Beatles music .That's BS.

In closing I would just like to disclose that I'm a huge fan of The Beatles. I think my review makes it pretty obvious but it doesn't differ from most of the other people who wrote a review here because we all read the book. You don't read a book like this unless you understand music and love the subject that it's written about. I grew up with these guys on TV and radio. They were considerably older than me. They were my childhood idols. I took piano lessons because of the Beatles. So yeah, I'm a fan. A gigantic fan who really enjoyed a hatchet job that was written about my all-time favorite band. Was 'A Day in the Life' the greatest rock song ever written? was Let It Be the greatest song that was ever written? And I'm talking genre of course. In my mind they were the two best rock songs ever written. It's an opinion. Only an opinion. When reading the book I would turn each page and think to myself Well, he is certainly not going to bash Here There and Everywhere. But he did. Well he has to love Yesterday, but he didn't. I thought to myself, Good Day Sunshine.... That's creative pop song writing at its best. Something bad to say about that one too and I could go on and on but you need to read the book and judge it for yourself. There is one last thing. The Mark Lewinson book gives credit where credit is due. That book recognizes George Martin's contribution and acknowledges that the Beatles wouldn't have been the Beatles especially in their formative years without his production and his musical genius. There is nary a mention of him in McDonald's work. I don't understand why. George Martin was really The Unofficial fifth Beatle. I'm finished rambling in the rest is up to you. I say read it. It's interesting
Very wordy and WAY overly analytical. You would think MacDonald is a direct descendant of Freud himself. The detail regarding actual recordings is fun to read. Yet despite all the detail and the overly long psychoanalysis, the author left out a key song for some bizarre reason Sexy Sadie. Sexy Sadie is completely ignored here without explanation. For a guy with an obsession for detail including all kinds of unreleased tracts, obscure recordings and an ego to rant about every song in their catalog, I'm at a loss for this glaring omission. I found it odd too, that MacDonald found so much fault with the bulk of the Beatles' catalog. He denigrates it with brio and over-analyses everything to the point that it becomes a tediously predictable exercise in psycho-bashing most of the their music. I wouldn't recommend this book to anybody.