Music Review: The Beatles - Love
Published November 25, 2006
It seems any "new" Beatles material is going to be greeted with the same reaction from die-hard fans: mostly derision, because whatever it is will surely be either leftover material parading as new or rehashes in the form of best-ofs.
And then there's Love, the odd concoction that straddles the middle ground between the two, both a best-of and something a bit new, if only because it never existed in this particular form before. And this is where the casual fans make out best - they can pick up something like Love and just enjoy it for what it is, rather than picking it apart before it even reaches store shelves, or just plain filing it away in the "failure" folder without even hearing it as many dedicated Beatles fans have because, as it is widely known, the Beatles music is holy and must not be touched! Do not touch! But touch it Sir George Martin and son Giles did, picking through the master tapes and finding the fortuitous moments of the Fab 4's better known songs that achieved that beautiful kind of alchemy where two or more songs can morph into one.
Some may look at Love as a failure because it lacks radical, modern touches that made Danger Mouse's Grey Album, which mashed up Jay-Z's a capella Black Album with instrumental material composed from unauthorized Beatles samples, so controversial, but they're missing the point: it doesn't need to be. That's not the purpose it serves. Love is, essentially, a greatest hits album with the spin of being a soundtrack of sorts to the Cirque du Soleil show in Las Vegas. Rather than do something that would appeal only to the 18-34 set as, say, something along the lines of Danger Mouse's creation generally would, Sir George Martin and son have instead done something that at least allows the music to breathe a bit of a new life without simply being a rehashed version of One from a few years ago while appealing to the widest possible audience. It's not entirely new music, but it's also not entirely old, either.
What it is, at least, is a bit fresh and a different perspective from which to view the music of the Beatles. After hearing the Beatles at some point, day-in and day-out, for the past 40 years for most people in the Western world, why aren't we all welcoming any change up to the sounds? Great as they are, it's nice to hear something a little different once in a while.
Most of all, Love is simply fun to hear. Let go all the preconceived notions, drop all the pretense associated with the Beatles after 40 years of deification, forget their status, and Love flows like a bunch of great music, nearly non-stop from beginning to end. It's hard to imagine any 80 minute stream of music having no stumbles, but Love manages to work - that's the magic of the Beatles at their best, I suppose, but there's more at play here than simply the magic of those great tunes they wrote so long ago. What really sells this set is what some have such a hard time with: the constant segues between songs, as if the whole album were nearly one long song. But buried in that mix are neat little nuggets for the Beatles die-hards - parts of songs that had been previously buried or parts that had never seen the light of day before, brought out by the Martins especially for this set. Love should be a treasure trove for the fans looking for new details to dig into.
- Music Review: The Beatles - Love
- Published: November 25, 2006
- Type: Review
- Section: Music
- Filed Under: Music: Classic Rock and Oldies, Music: Rock, Music: Soundtracks
- Writer: Tom Johnson
- Tom Johnson's BC Writer page
- Tom Johnson's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
I think I went into this with the belief that there was no way they'd go with something as radical as a real mashup, Nik. I just couldn't believe they'd do something that could alienate the massive older fanbase they have who would absolutely not appreciate a move like that.
Something I wish I'd thought more about is what impact projects like this (and Let It Be Naked) are having on the legacy of the Beatles. Are they watering down the power of their catalog, or are they keeping their name out there, somewhat refreshened for younger ears that may not be already into them? A topic for another time, I suppose . . .
I've listened to this album six times now - twice in 5.1 surround sound, and what I take away from it each time is something new - no pun intended. Even the songs that sound as if they're "untouched" have a richer stereo mix than ever before. The word that keeps coming to my mind is "soundscape". A lot of die hard Beatles fans aren't even giving "Love" a chance - and they have no idea what they're missing. I am probably more of a die-hard fan than most fans - my son's name is Harrison, my daughter is McCartney - and as long as Sir George Martin is at the mixing console, I have utter faith that he will protect the legacy he helped form.
I too am hoping Martin gets together with Giles, Paul and Ringo and does a "cleaning" of all the old discs, I have no problem purchasing all of them again for the fourth time. But he had better hurry. Martin is 80 years young - he needs to get this done.
A side note, as I listened to "Get Back", "Let It Be", etc. I was reminded of how much better the "Let It Be" album might have been with Martin in charge of production instead of Phil Spector.
Except bringing out the re-mastered material, I did not find anything exciting on the album.
Gilles Martin- son gets a toy- access to the material no one else had before, uses technology to polish it, has couple of good ideas, but not enough talent to make it really something.
George Martin- getting old, trying to put his son's foot in the Beatles world. So the little one does not have to search for another 10-min-famous Hayley Westenra.
Paul, Ringo and Yoko- fighting for the Beatles legacy the wrong way through not very inspiring recycling of the old and stepping on the fingers of everyone who has talent, wants to play with their music and actually show its greatness from different perspectives, not only the Apple-approved one.
And while Beatles are proud to be in a circus, Gramophone magazine compares Bono to Beethoven :):):). Maybe Beatles should hire Ruffi for their "legacy" project.
Congrats! This article has been forwarded to the Advance.net websites.
Congratulations! This article was an Editor's Pick this week.
Thank you for the review. I kept hearing about this "new" Beatles album, but had no idea what people were talking about. I heard "mash-up", but am old when it comes to music and had no idea what that was. This sounds interesting.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/56241)
Good review, and I like your take on the disc. I think my main problem with the disc, now that I've had more time to chew on it, is that I bought into the hype of it being a "mashup" or somesuch and was disappointed to consider it pretty tame as "mixing" up things went. That said, the more I listen to it the more blown away I am by the sound... and already putting another mortgage on the house in anticipation of buying the remastered albums whenever they appear. They get us every time!