PDA

View Full Version : Album Club Week 77: 22.01.2013: The Beatles - 'White Album' (1968)



Ashmore
22-01-2013, 00:05
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/TheBeatles68LP.jpg/600px-TheBeatles68LP.jpg

45 years separates us and this album. So how has it stood the test of time?

Is the White Album an eclectic masterpiece that captures the spirit of the age, or the rambling, unfocused indulgence of four egos on different journeys?

For me this album represents a disintegration of the Beatles as a coherent entity as much as it does a musical progression for the group. As such its probably the least 'Beatles-like' album they did.

It's a double album of course. The Epstein era Beatles might have condensed the 30 songs into one disc (or two separate albums) of the exceptional tracks, but Epstein was dead and the Beatles themselves were calling the shots.

The recording sessions lasted six months and were famously fractious. Ringo quit, only to be persuaded back two weeks' later. Harrison walked out shortly afterwards. Yoko Ono was a constant presence in the studio. A Hard Days Night (1964) must have seemed like a lifetime away to them.

OK that's enough preamble... I present the White Album... well I would except it's not on Spotify. But you've all got a copy right?

Wiki says some interesting things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_%28album%29

Rare Bird
22-01-2013, 00:16
Brilliant, i love it 9/10 from me.

The Grand Wazoo
22-01-2013, 00:20
You've chosen a monster there Simon!
I'll be interested to know what some of the other guys here about this one. I'll be playing my copy again in a day or so, though it's not that long since I played it last.

Ashmore
22-01-2013, 00:22
Haha I know. But not the most obvious Beatles record I hope. Tends to split opinion. We'll see.

RichB
22-01-2013, 00:39
A fantastic album let down only by my poor low quality mp3 version. Now looking for a cheap CD version to do it justice.

John
22-01-2013, 05:58
Probably my favourite Beatles album
MM08Iwx6NVM

MartinT
22-01-2013, 08:26
I haven't played it in ages so I'll pull it out and have a listen.

Audioman
22-01-2013, 08:40
It's The Beatles so it has to be 10/10 even if it's not their best. Abbey Road Revolver, and Pepper are better so if those come up we need the Spinal Tap rating scale.

synsei
22-01-2013, 11:09
I have never owned a copy of this album nor have I ever sat down to listen to it as an entity, although I can be fairly confident I will be familiar with individual tracks. Sgt Pepper is the only Beatles album I own. I am a bit non-committal when it comes to The Beatles, I was never really a fan. On that basis I feel it would not be appropriate for me to vote.

MartinT
22-01-2013, 11:15
Dave - if you can get to listen to it, then no matter what your views are it'll be appropriate to vote.

synsei
22-01-2013, 11:19
If I can find it to stream it Martin then I will listen to it but I am not going out of my way to buy a copy dude, I'm just not that interested, sorry ;)

Rare Bird
22-01-2013, 11:42
People like what they like but i find it hard to believe anyone does'nt like the The Beatles!

synsei
22-01-2013, 11:58
It's not that I don't like The Beatles per sé André, it's that I never bought into the hype, and besides I find much of their material a bit hit or miss if I'm honest. Sgt Pepper is the only Beatles album I have been able to sit through in its entirety up 'til now. Who knows, I may like The White Album when I listen to it but I am not holding my breath. Incidentally, I do have a cracking playlist of Beatles songs that I will happily sit and listen to although many are covers by other artists, which should explain a lot.

MartinT
22-01-2013, 12:33
They were exceptional songwriters, that's for sure.

Bazil
22-01-2013, 13:21
I'm not as my avatar might suggest a Beatle nut. I like millions of others grew up to their sound and I do have a huge soft spot for them. As Martin says, exceptional songwriters and so prodigious that I feel some of their albums lack identity, The White Album the biggest example, its a right old mish mash of songs.
I didn't get round to buying this album until a few years ago and by then I was all Beatled out, my opinion of it might have been very different if I'd got it when it came out but I was a bit young and didn't buy my first album until 1970, which just happened to be Let it Be which I am still very fond of.
I will give TWA a fresh listen tonight.

Macca
22-01-2013, 13:57
Let's face it by the time this came out the Beatles could have shit in a bucket and had the world queuing up to compliment them - and following a moderately successful demo run with 'Sargeant Pepper' it was with this opus that they really put that theory to the full-fat test. 4 interminable sides full of self-indulgent bollocks with only 2 half decent tracks (Back in the USSR and While My Guitar...) amongst the whole lot. Fortunately I've not had a listen to this since 1985 and if I never have to endure it again it will be too soon so I'm not voting but it still needed to be said. The emperor has no clothes.

Marco
22-01-2013, 13:59
Hi Rich,


A fantastic album let down only by my poor low quality mp3 version. Now looking for a cheap CD version to do it justice.

Why not treat yourself to one of the new re-masters on vinyl, from the money you saved on buying your car? ;)

Trust me, the new vinyl will sound better, played on your Techy, than ANY CD!! :exactly:

Marco.

Audioman
22-01-2013, 14:39
Let's face it by the time this came out the Beatles could have shit in a bucket and had the world queuing up to compliment them - and following a moderately successful demo run with 'Sargeant Pepper' it was with this opus that they really put that theory to the full-fat test. 4 interminable sides full of self-indulgent bollocks with only 2 half decent tracks (Back in the USSR and While My Guitar...) amongst the whole lot. Fortunately I've not had a listen to this since 1985 and if I never have to endure it again it will be too soon so I'm not voting but it still needed to be said. The emperor has no clothes.

The only track that could be called interminable self indulgent bollocks is Revolution #9 but most of the tracks are good to great and frankly for a double album it is pretty solid compared with anything any other rock group has ever come up with maybe apart from The Who. I know there are a few tracks that can grate a little but there are gems such as Blackbird, Dear Prudence and Helter Skelter that have become classics receiving many covers by more recent bands.

Listened to as a whole it is better than when first released when in fact it did receive critical paning when another Sgt Pepper was probably expected. Lennon had largely lost the plot at this point but could still write some good material with McCartney adding melody as well as invention together with George growing as a songwriter. If you want interminable self indulgent bollocks try Lennon's Two Virgins from the same period.

BTW contrary to certain reviews the new vinyl cut is fine but needs to be played loud due to the low cutting level.

Paul.

Paul.

John
22-01-2013, 16:30
I am like Dave when it comes to the Beatles, yes I get their place in history and at times fantastic song writing, but I can never listen to a full album in one sitting

Spectral Morn
22-01-2013, 16:45
I voted three I dislike the Beatles and bar a few songs they are one of the most overrated bands of all time, along with the Stones. :sofa: I have been told I have no soul lol


Regards Neil

synsei
22-01-2013, 17:53
I don't feel comfortable voting for an album I haven't heard so I won't be for the moment, it wouldn't be fair. I didn't realise Blackbird was on TWA, one of my fave Beatles tracks this, along with Michelle. ;)

Barry
22-01-2013, 19:14
I've only given it a 6.

By and large I agree with the sentiments of the OP. Definitely the start of a parting of the ways for the Fab Four and an over-hyped title.

Largely let down by the poor recording quality: bugger-all sound staging and depth.

The Grand Wazoo
22-01-2013, 19:21
Largely let down by the poor recording quality: bugger-all sound staging and depth.

Mono is the best bet here, by far!

Barry
22-01-2013, 20:04
That's interesting Chris, as my main complaint is the recording is all 'left and right' with very little centre.

The sort of sound one got with original mono recordings which had been "electronically processed for stereo" (actually, a more accurate statement should have been "electronically mucked-up for stereo"), yet the recording date is such that proper stereo mixes would have made. :scratch:

The Grand Wazoo
22-01-2013, 20:11
I've got the mono CD on at the moment & it's great!
The mixes are different, there are pro's & cons for both versions, but I think the mono wins out overall.
There's a website somewhere.........hang on..........!

The Grand Wazoo
22-01-2013, 20:16
Here it is - The Beatles White Album: Mono vs Stereo (http://www.thebeatleswhitealbum.org/the-album/mono-vs-stereo/)

Part of a whole site dedicated to the album! (Beatles White Album homepage (http://www.thebeatleswhitealbum.org/))

Audioman
22-01-2013, 20:28
That's interesting Chris, as my main complaint is the recording is all 'left and right' with very little centre.

The sort of sound one got with original mono recordings which had been "electronically processed for stereo" (actually, a more accurate statement should have been "electronically mucked-up for stereo"), yet the recording date is such that proper stereo mixes would have made. :scratch:

So what UK stereo albums from 1968 have you heard that have fantasticly mixed stereo with great soundstage width and depth? My view is US recorded stereo albums were well ahead at this time especialy if Bruce Bosnick or Roy Halee had a hand. At EMI for pop mono was the thing as late as 1968 and even on this may have received more effort than stereo which was now being taken more seriously. Mono recording would soon be a thing of the past.

The main sin of the White Album is a somewhat rough uneven sound with track to track variation. Also tight cutting to fit longish sides to vinyl might be partialy responsible. Certainy an improvement in stereo placement over earlier Beatles albums (except for Beatles For Sale).

Have you tried the new LP? Not universaly liked but I think it addresses some of the problems with original compression removed, a warmer more even sound and more bass. It is cut at a lower level so needs to be turned up otherwise it will sound disappointing. Some will prefer an original obviously.

Paul.

WOStantonCS100
22-01-2013, 20:30
I grew up on this record (among others) not knowing about the fractures in the band or any of the craziness that was going on in The Beatles "camp" at the time; so, I could only judge it on whether I liked what I was hearing or didn't. As such, I took it for what it was musically, which for me decades later, is still one of the most unique statements I've heard from any band. It holds my attention from beginning to end, takes me on a journey and, by virtue or it's uniqueness, remains a huge influence on me musically in terms of eschewing corporate homogenization; playing/composing what you want; no limitations - no cookie cutters. Better than MMT or SPLHCB? I can't say because I rarely listen to music that way. They're all distinctly their own thing/album/presentation. So, to make a long story short... I would not part with this album. I do need a better copy of it and judging from my recently acquired Revolver pressing, it's probably a no brainer.

Alex_UK
22-01-2013, 21:05
Firstly, big thanks to Simon for doing his Album Club post without the need for chasing and for an excellent choice - amazed we've not had The Beatles before now!

I did go mad and buy all the remasters when they came out a couple of years ago, and I too didn't really "get" them, but this was one of the albums I already had. Not played it in ages, so looking forward to it.

Bazil
22-01-2013, 21:56
A collection of songs, something for everyone maybe.
While my Guitar Gently Weeps deserves to be on a different album, a diamond of a song in amongst throwaway ditties.
7/10.

Rare Bird
22-01-2013, 22:00
The main sin of the White Album is a somewhat rough uneven sound with track to track variation.

obviously it was recorded at two different studios :rolleyes:

Barry
23-01-2013, 01:14
So what UK stereo albums from 1968 have you heard that have fantasticly mixed stereo with great soundstage width and depth?

Several: how about The Beatles 'St. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band' (1967, EMI Parlophone PCS 7027, Matrix no. 5 (side 1) and no. 3 (side 2)), or 'Revolver' (1966, EMI Parlophone PCS 7009, Matrix no. 6 (both sides)). Either of these LPs have a better width, depth and soundstage than The White Album.

Or, if you want to consider other groups apart from The Beatles, how about The Rolling Stones - 'Let it Bleed' (1969, Decca 6835 105, Matrix no. 5 (side 1) and no.2 (side 2)).

Or The Pink Floyd - 'Piper at the Gates of Dawn' etc. etc.

Audioman
23-01-2013, 12:05
Several: how about The Beatles 'St. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band' (1967, EMI Parlophone PCS 7027, Matrix no. 5 (side 1) and no. 3 (side 2)), or 'Revolver' (1966, EMI Parlophone PCS 7009, Matrix no. 6 (both sides)). Either of these LPs have a better width, depth and soundstage than The White Album.

Or, if you want to consider other groups apart from The Beatles, how about The Rolling Stones - 'Let it Bleed' (1969, Decca 6835 105, Matrix no. 5 (side 1) and no.2 (side 2)).

Or The Pink Floyd - 'Piper at the Gates of Dawn' etc. etc.

None of these have great soundstage. Pepper/ Revolver have a more dated left/right mixing style than TWA. None are great but you can tell TWA is using 8 track recording rather than 4 track. It may not be the best recorded but it sounds closer to more modern multitracking. I think the vinyl cutting to fit 4 long sides may account partly for your impressions of soundstage. Let it bleed like most 1969 recordings sounds much better but the stones are not the pinacle of recording quality either.


The sessions for The Beatles were notable for the band's formal transition from 4-track to 8-track recording. As work on the album began, Abbey Road Studios possessed, but had yet to install, an 8-track machine that had supposedly been sitting in a storage room for months. This was in accordance with EMI's policy of testing and customising new gear, sometimes for months, before putting it into use in the studios. The Beatles recorded "Hey Jude" and "Dear Prudence" at Trident Studios in central London, which had an 8-track recorder. When they learned about EMI's 8-track recorder, they insisted on using it, and engineers Ken Scott and Dave Harries took the machine (without authorisation from the studio chiefs) into the Number 2 recording studio at Abbey Road for the band's use.

Barry
23-01-2013, 19:29
Guess we will have to agree to disagree. :rolleyes:

MartinT
23-01-2013, 19:40
It was good listening to the album again. I agree that the stereo is very artificial (and I dislike off-centre vocals), but listened to from another room it really sounds still fresh and inventive. I'll give it 7/10.

Ashmore
24-01-2013, 10:00
OK, I'm going to pitch in now. I've known this album since I was a dot. I have it in mono and stereo (there are merits to both versions) blah blah.

I love the almost unedited insight into their creative minds; it makes the album what it is. But in other respects that's also the problem.

I can't help but think that were this a one disc album I think it could have been spectacular: Back in the USSR, Helter Skelter, Revolution (fast version), While My Guitar etc... A real rock'n'roll album. Enough quirkiness to convey the Beatles' character, but not so much that it feels like the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

All subjective of course, and of no consequence really. As McCartney said "It's the Beatles White Album, shut up!"

7

Rare Bird
24-01-2013, 10:09
I don't care what anyone says Beatles recordings are very good, if your stereo says otherwise it basically needs dumping in the nearest canal :D

DSJR
24-01-2013, 10:13
I never really got it and still don't, so *currently* a 4/10 from me. As said above, maybe had it been a single album rather than a mixed double?????????

Maybe I should have had an older brother who was into mid-late 60's rock and very early prog?????

Audioman
24-01-2013, 11:38
I don't care what anyone says Beatles recordings are very good, if your stereo says otherwise it basically needs dumping in the nearest canal :D

I think some people expect the sort of sound you get from good seventies multitracks. The Beatles recordings are good for the time. You can certainly hear the progression in SQ as recording equipment improved. The White Album certainly falls into line with this progression even if it does not involve the tape trickery of SPLHCB.

Alex_UK
24-01-2013, 14:06
Listened to it twice (once on headphones and then on a second system) and I must admit I do tend to think it is too much of a good(ish) thing with all 30 tracks one after the other and then repeated! Holding off on the voting as I would like to listen to it one more time on the main rig before I do, but it will be a respectable showing for it! :)

Rare Bird
24-01-2013, 14:24
Maybe I should have had an older brother who was into mid-late 60's rock and very early prog?????

I'll bi thi Bruvver :eyebrows:

DSJR
24-01-2013, 20:31
Ah, grand lad :)

Audio Al
24-01-2013, 20:53
The Beatles were a bit before my time ( not much )

I think they are OK but not fantastic

I have listened to the album on line via the link , Personally I would not go out of my way to buy it so I gave

6 out of 10

synsei
24-01-2013, 21:05
I have had a listen to this now and my opinion is that it doesn't work as an album. There are individual tracks that are familiar to me which I did enjoy but frankly it is just a collection of disparate songs. I wasn't that impressed by the production either as it was all over the shop... 4/10 (sorry Simon...)

WAD62
25-01-2013, 12:49
One of the few Beatles albums I can bare, Sgt Peppers being may favourite, some good songs mixed up with twee ditties... 5/10 for me

Ashmore
25-01-2013, 18:53
sorry Simon
T'is no problem to me old boy, I picked it deliberately to stimulate discussion. If I were to pick my favourite we'd be talking about Revolver (or sgt peppers... or abbey road... or rubber soul).

webby
26-01-2013, 21:23
I've revisited this album the last two nights. I know the album quite well although there are some tracks that I used to skip, but not enough to whittle it down to a single album.

It's well documented that this is an album of solo songs; the start of the breakup of the band, hence the disparate songs and inconsistent production. Having said that there are some great songs, I've voted 6 for the album but there are songs that are worth much more.

McCartney really put in a good shift on this album with some great bass lines not just on his songs but John and George's too. I particularly enjoyed Happiness is a Warm Gun, Glass Onion, Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except For me and My Monkey, and Long, Long, Long this time around.

Mostly, it's an eclectic album that doesn't work as a 'normal' album, albeit a double album (how many doubles do?), but then there are rewards to be had through it being so eclectic.

At the end of the day, we can all make our own White Album playlist.

pjdowns
09-09-2013, 22:20
Brilliant album :)

Tarzan
14-09-2013, 13:15
Brilliant album -end of.:)