The "Beatles For Sale" album (1964). Unfairly ignored or underrated ?

Beatles for Sale has better sound than With The Beatles.

Too many questionable cover songs, though. Although there were some very good songs.

They were tired from touring and this album was put forth rather quickly.

The look on their faces on the album cover tells it all.

I bought the stereo UK cassette recently.

Very good sound.

Mr. Moonlight is so out of character.

Because most Beatles songs I either love or like a lot.

Mr. is one song that's not even tolerable to me.

Kansas City appears to be going through the motions.

But the beginning of the album starts off very well.

I love Baby's In Black, particularly the Shea Stadium performance.

Words of Love is very good as well.

 

I wish they would have left off Mr. Moonlight in favor of another cover song.

 

they could have put slow down or matchbox instead of it imho...

 

Oh yeah! Between those two I would have picked Matchbox for the album.

 

I think most even those who say they don't care for Beatles for Sale as much as other Beatles albums acknowledge No Reply and I'm a Loser are up there as great Beatles songs. But how one feels about Baby's in Black I think separates those who are underwhelmed by it as compared to those who are bigger fans. Looking back as well as at the time, Baby's in Black was a very big song for them, so many new things going on in it (this has been covered earlier here). In other words if you "get" Baby, you get Beatles for Sale.

Having said that I suppose the camp of "too many covers", to which I do not belong, could still recognize Baby and end up nonetheless underrating Beatles For Sale. But my impression is its Baby that makes it for most fans of the album.

 

Yes.

I'll play Beatles For Sale just to hear Baby's In Black.

If ANYTHING represents the early Beatles and the unbelievable partnership of Lennon and McCartney, this is it:

Sláger zene: The Beatles - Shea Stadium - Baby's in Black ( 1965 ) (videó)

 

What are you talking about referring to sameness factor? "You've Got You Hide Your Love Away" sounds like prior Beatles? "The Night Before" has an almost light pop-jazz feel in the chords, harmonies, and melody, reminding me a bit of Bacharach from that period. I'm not sure how you couldn't say that they were developing more sophistication both musically and lyrically with that album.

 

It's the Beatles album I listen to most often. I think that it tends to be underrated because there are fewer Lennon-McCartney originals, and they aren't as good as those on A Hard Days Night. But, that overlooks the fact that the four Beatles each contributed one amazing cover - John's "Rock and Roll Music", Paul's "Kansas City", George's "Everybody's Trying to Be My Baby" and Ringo's "Honey Don't".

Rock on George, one time for me.

 

I grew up on the Beatles catalog, like many others (with the '87 CDs and some cassettes, scratched vinyl). From age 5 or so to now, I have ALWAYS thought Mr. Moonlight was by far the best cover on this album - head and shoulders above the other standard RnR covers.

The Beatles tackling melodic R&B is always a good thing. It wasn't until the development of me discovering the internet boards such as this one that the track was universally panned. I don't get it. I don't remember any of the books I had circa the late 90s/early 2000s while I was cutting my teeth having any critical reaction to how bad it was. It's a really good song, cool instrumentation, FANTASTIC vocal, good harmonies. What's not to like here?

I've always preferred the early Beatles to the later Beatles - still do - although now I really am into the albums that Revolver/Sgt Pepper influenced more than those actual albums....

 

Like it more than Please Please Me and With The Beatles, and maybe even - shock horror - The White Album. But not as much as everything else.

 

Yes they deviate from that occasionally due to being who they are (easily bored) but overall they continued to execute the tried and true sound throughout those albums for 'Beatlemania' purposes. It's not that that sound can't be sophisticated, it is that they had already perfected it and onto the next.

 

I don't hear it that way. Yes, they were The Beatles, and their forte was always guitar-and-vocal-harmony-based rock, but only up until Beatles for Sale do I consider the music to be "Beatlemania" like you seem to. BfS saw them starting to expand their palettes, and Help is distinctly different - more colors, more unusual instruments, darker and more adult themes. Little of it is music for girls to scream to.

 

Difference of opinions I suppose. No Reply is easily one of the darkest, least appropriate songs for girls to scream along to, and that is on BfS. That song is probably not released on a soundtrack album. I'm not saying no experimentation is there across these mid period albums, I'm just saying since they are produced with movie soundtracks in mind there was logically less room for them Beatles to stretch their expansive creative legs. Case in point, the title track of Help. Lennon himself has stated Help was originally a piano ballad and he changed it to an up tempo song due to, you guessed it, commercial pressure. Theyre still trying to maintain the Beatlemania verneer even though internally they're already way past it. Finally to be completely shed with Rubber Soul.

 

I've always found it a shame that the best sounding Beatles album (at least in stereo) is sadly the least interesting album.

It's biggest fault is being sandwiched between two truly exceptional albums. It lacks the fresh, innocent energy of A Hard Day's Night and the genre-pushing experimentation of Help!. It almost plays like an outtakes album of leftovers that wouldn't have made the cut elsewhere.

Not to be too harsh, since in any other contemporary band's catalog BFS would be a home run. But for The Beatles, the whole thing ultimately just feels about as tired as their expressions on the cover suggest. It isn't underrated; it's rightfully overshadowed by everything else in the catalog.

 

Does this one actually sound any good? See it around quite a bit...

 

In the US, there was no Beatles for Sale. We got Beatles '65, which I love.

 

Ignored? There is a simple reason, the 1987 CD is poor, the 2009 re-release is much better, go for it!

 

Lennon's vocal work on Beatles for Sale is quite extraordinary. And he continues to display his influences, e.g., Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, and Bob Dylan. For example, Lennon's vocal on "Rock and Roll Music" (yep, "Rock and Roll Music" is a cover version, just like "Twist and Shout") is one of the great vocals in the history of rock and roll. Beatles for Sale is a great album. Unfairly ignored.

 

Is this the first album to have a gatefold opening?
Not Beatles only but from anyone.

 

Yeah I noticed the same thing when I got the cd box set.

 

Some may disagree, but the 2009 stereo version makes a world of difference.

I bought a Beatles for Sale cassette (made in the U.K.) which is stereo.

It's actually a well recorded album.

 

I remember some earlier Broadway cast and movie soundtrack albums in my parent's collection that were in gatefold sleeves. "My Fair Lady" and "South Pacific" for two.

 

It's a transitional album with a handful of more mature songs, covers that bark back to the first two albums and a couple of songs that are holding. I know that Paul has gone on record as saying What You're Doing and Every Little Thing were "work" songs but I like both.

 

If they would have not done any of the covers except "Words Of Love" that would leave 9 songs. And those 9 are great! Program the cd player to just play those and the people that don't care for this album will come around.

 

Bark back?