Beatles Love, should I run?


I am considering the purchase of the Beatles Love album on vinyl.

Sometimes when I hear songs that are not in their original format I prefer the original but this has gotten such universal praise that I wonder if maybe I would like it.

Who has heard this and what do you think?

I welcome any comments..

Phil
128x128philjolet

Showing 8 responses by audiofeil

>>Now, if only someone would do the same thing with Dylan ..<<

Couldn't agree less.

Love is a total abomination and highly irrelevant.

More appropriate "artists" are Englebert and Barry Manilow.
I don't think criticism of this album has any relevance to "the band that started it all". They are two separate issues.

Most bands have released at least one lemon and the Beatles had no say in this one.

>>.....Actually both Paul and Ringo consulted and gave their blessing on the project<<

Paul and Ringo are not the Beatles. However, it doesn't matter whether you're citing Ringo, Paul, Yoko, or George Martin; money is the salient issue. I suspect John Lennon is turning over in his grave but we'll never know.

Look if you guys like this schlock fine, but ensure it's kept alongside your Barry Manilow and Air Supply stuff where it rightfully belongs. I wouldn't dignify my collection with this POS.

There is no accounting for bad taste.
>>But I think the music John did with Yoko sort of disqualifies his opinion.<<

Wasn't it Paul McCartney who gave us rock gems such as Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey, Silly Love Songs, Say Say Say, Coming Up, Smile Away, Mary Had a Little Lamb, Hi Hi Hi, Let 'Em In, With a Little Luck, ad nauseum?

So much for that argument.

Besides, the music Lennon made with Yoko was a small percentage of his total body of work which is clearly superior to brother Paul's.

McCartney's solo work and with Wings is so syrupy your turntable may think it's playing pancakes.
Couldn't agree more on the balance.

In the case of the Beatles the whole was far greater than the sum of the parts.

Semblance of music? Not for me. You could make a case for Debbie Gibson and Donnie Osmond on that premise.
>>the one who sang is the one who wrote it.<<

Not always. These come to mind immediately:

“If I Fell”, written by John, sung by Paul
“I’m Happy Just to Dance With You, written by John, sung by George
“Every Little Thing”, written by Paul, sung by John
“I Don’t Want to Spoil the Party”, written by John, sung by Paul
“Tell Me What You See”, written by Paul, sung by John

I'm sure there's more.

>>They didn't write the Beatle tunes together<<

That's pure crap. More songs were written jointly than individually.

If you take the time to read "Beatlesongs" by William J. Dowlding you'll see that most of the songs were co-authored. Many were not a 50/50 collaboration but the Dowlding book breaks down each song and the percentage contribution made by Lennon and McCartney.

Check it out.
Once again, as is the case so often Warren, you are simply wrong.

Many sources used by William J. Dowlding (not Dowling, another mistake on your part) include:
Rolling Stone
Big Beat
Billboard
Innersleeve
Crawdaddy
Playboy
Hit Parader
Associated Press
Guitar Player
Fulton
Digital magazine
Newsweek

The bibliography and list of credits are too long to list here.

So whom do we believe? This carefully researched book or a poster offering his own misguided and unsupported opinions?

I'll leave that up to the readers.
OK I apologize.

I'm sorry that most of Paul's work with Wings and as a solo artist sucks.

Feel better?