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

Well said. And John and Paul both knew firsthand about grief and loss, both having lost their mothers. Apples and oranges, but sung sympathetically and with heart, I'd say.

 

I am sorry, I read your previous post as saying that it was a transition album in some sense was a negative. In other words, by the time they got to if you will a destination album, or an album representing a distinct phase for them (I suppose Rubber Soul would fit that definition), that such an example was better than a transition album.

As far as whether Beatles for Sale or Beatles 65/Beatles VI were great albums? They certainly sold well. I think within the year that followed the introduction of Beatles 65 it was the biggest selling non-soundtrack album in the US. Funny, I had the I Feel Fine She's a Woman single already when it came out (my brother bought Beatles 65), but their presence on the album no doubt helped sales. Not to sound a downer note, but for me the biggest problem with Beatles 65 was the presence of Mr. Moonlight. I know it has its fans, but I am not one of them.

Other than that, though, yeah I consider it a great album. Beatles VI I am not quite so fond of.

 

I re-discovered this album over the last few years. It's a natural progression to Help/ Rubber Soul. It's hard to classify any Beatles release as underrated. In any event, I love it and because I more or less ignored for a long time, it has a freshness to it now.

 

Beatles For Sale is a go to album for me. It captures a time in their history well, from the vivid album cover to the very orange and Fall time sound of the tracks. "No Reply" sounds just like the album cover, I love the feeling of it. Even the cover songs, aside from Honey Don't and Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby, which I don't enjoy, it's a neat selection of tracks. I even like Mr. Moonlight because of John's vocal.

 

Capitol took the tracks on Beatles for Sale and split them over two LPs (Beatles 65 & Beatles VI) by adding additional tracks - “I Feel Fine,” “She’s a Woman” (one of my favorite Beatles songs); “Dizzy Miss Lizzy;” “Bad Boy,” etc. I love the additional tracks - they are some of my favorite Beatles tunes.

 

I love this album.
Tons of brilliant John/Paul harmony vocals.
I also love the sometimes-maligned "Rock and Roll Music"......it should have closed the record......like Lennon ending a show----clearly fatigued but the band buoying him up----he's still signing like he means it.
Lennon doing "Honey Don't" at the BBC is a tour de force----he should have done it on the album.
My only real problem is the obligatory Ringo and George solo vocal tracks (I guess they couldn't have two albums in a row without a Ringo vocal).

The absence of "Leave My Kitten Alone" is one of the biggest head-scratchers----they rarely seemed to make bad decisions (most of those were film-related) but this is a big one.

Those outtakes of "She's a Woman" where Paul sounds like Yoko Ono........underscoring----perhaps-----the weed influence on these sessions.

 

One could easily make an album of all-originals for Beatles for Sale. With a fair bit of cheating, of course: using all songs they had already started writing by then, but not yet finished and were recorded later, or not at all:

Side One:
01 No Reply
02 I'm a Loser
03 Baby's in Black
04 One After 909
05 I'll Follow the Sun
06 You Know What to Do
07 She's a Woman
Side Two:
08 Eight Days a Week
09 Michelle
10 What Goes On
11 Every Little Thing
12 I Don't Want to Spoil the Party
13 What You're Doing
14 Yesterday

Non-album single:
- I Feel Fine b/w It's For You

04 - written back in the Quarrymen days. I replace Rock n' Roll Music with an original that sounds like it. Had they re-recorded it for BFS, it would probably sound a lot like RRM, faster and with some great piano playing

06 - demoed together with No Reply and It's For You, replacing the other George song, which was a Perkins cover. It would most probably have a nice rockabilly arrangement, too, and wouldn't sound too shabby

09 - the instrumental basis and some of the lyrics date back to the Quarrymen days, and my guess is that the arrangement would stay virtually the same

10 - written in 1959 (!!!) and replaces the very similar Honey Don't, with its great rockabilly arrangement, and a Ringo vocal. Arrangement stays exactly the same

14 - begun in late 1963 with the title "Scrambled Eggs". Really. Would probably sound like the "band arrangement", they played live back then, only with acoustic instruments. Picture a slower "And I Love Her"

 

Don't forget the Rock and Roll Music EP

 

What about VJ’s Songs, Pictures and Stories? That was kind of a double. But you’re right. There weren’t that many.

 

This would be my idea of a much better album:

Side 1

Eight Days A Week
I'm A Loser
Nobody I Know
It's For You
From A Window
Baby's In Black
You'll Know What To Do

Side 2

What You're Doing
Every Little Thing
World Without Love
No Reply
I Don't Want To See You Again
I Don't Want To Spoil The Party
I'll Follow the Sun

Ringo could easily handle the vocals on "From A Window" with some backing "ooohs and aaahs" from the other guys. All the remakes on the album could easily have been combined with "Leave My Kitten Alone," "Dizzy Miss Lizzy," "Bad Boy" and "Act Naturally," to create a whole separate LP of covers.

 

A Date with the Everly Brothers and Elvis Is Back! both had gatefolds before Beatles For Sale, but it could have been the first UK pop album to have one.

 

Great album, but Beatles '65 bests it.

Lean track list, chock full of tens. Every time I hear "She's A Woman" without a gallon of reverb, I feel it's a missed opportunity.

 

Apparently my ears are fake, because they sound either dreadful or redundant (Mr. Moonlight, Kansas City, Honey Don't, Words of Love, Everybody's Trying to Be My Baby.) However, Rock n Roll Music is the definitive version of that song for me. 1 out of 6. A lot of these songs are cobbled in the middle, making it possibly the worst 5 song stretch on a Beatles record.

 

How anyone can call their version of Words of Love dreadful is beyond me. One of the greatest recordings the Beatles ever did!

 

The reverb versi0n sounds like it was recorded in a mine. Hate it then, hate it now.

 

That was the redundant one.

 

The originals are fantastic, one of my favorite batches of their songs. If they’d managed to go write a complete album of originals, I think this album would be seen as one of their best. The covers are OK, but at this point in their career we know they’re excellent writers and the covers just seem non-essential.

 

I agree; by the time of BFS, they were running low on great covers, IMO (but the larger number of originals was a huge plus)...but I think both Words Of Love and Kansas City fall into the "great cover" category. They didn't have the frenetic power of songs like Twist and Shout, Money or Long Tall Sally, but they were great nonetheless. The two part harmony on Words of Love with the combined vocal textures of John and Paul is, in a word, heavenly. And Paul's lead vocal on Kansas City is, to my ears, one of his greatest rock and roll vocals ever. He takes an "ok" song and makes it exciting.

 

Dreadful OR redundant. Or or or or. Now listen to this original and tell me exactly what amazing thing The Beatles improved on:



Redundant. And Kansas City may be Paul's worst cover.

 

IMO, Rock And Roll Music and Kansas City are among the best covers they ever did. Plus, both were recorded live in the studio and both were first takes!

 

Agreed. Kansas City.....well if I walked in to a bar with live music and heard a band playing it exactly like that (with modern amolification) i would think; “hey nice blues band”.

They could do blues. Just like their bbc recordings of I Got To Find My Baby. It might be labeled RnR at the time but listen to it with modern ears and it is pure blues.

 

BFS is among my favourite Beatles albums, even though it contains two of my least favourite songs: Mr Moonlight and Baby’s In Black.

There is nothing profound here, just a great tight band playing some new and cover material.

The harmonies are just great and I get the sense they enjoy playing together; the inter band politics that would ultimately destroy the group are still a couple years away.

I think BFS is a great album, and I even like it in its B65 version (but not as much).

 

And BFS is the only Beatles album with four classic rock and roll era numbers, and each sung by a different band member.

 

I agree. And it features one of the best guitar solos of their early recording career (IMO comparable to the one on ISHST), not devised beforehand by George but improvised, as the other recorded take shows.

Both Kansas City and Rock and Roll Music feature their respective lead singers at their vocal best IMHO.