OK, I'll pipe up as another Beatles fan. I love 'Revolution 9'. It goes somewhere, says something, and leaves an impression. Further, far from being wild or zany, I think it is tastefully created, intelligently constrained, and has a beautiful shape and flow.
If the Velvet Underground had done Revolution 9 instead of the Beatles, the same people who have always trashed it would praise it as a masterpiece.
Slightly OT, but anyone find it strangely ironic that George and John both got bitten by the "copyright" invoked here? Dan
So let me get this straight: The other active thread on "Revolution #9" gets nuked from orbit, so we have to have all the same arguments over again here?
This is the elephant in the room. For some strange reason there is little recognition of the glaring fact that those most offended by Revolution #9 are hardcore Beatles fans, while the few fans and casual listeners who appreciate the track are cast as saucer-eyed Beatle devotees. Weird!
Well it’s certainly avant-garde and I give The Beatles credit for having the balls to release it but genius? No. It’s interesting to be sure but there were other artists thst did similar type of stuff at the time. ‘it’s not awful mind you and I do listen to it on occasion.
Yes, many records of the era had a freestyle introspective section. Revolution #9 did not get an automatic thumbs up because it is Beatles, it is due to it being Beatles that it is singled out and judged more harshly than all the other experimental music on records at the time.
Some interesting isolations of Rev. 9 on archive Can't link, go to Internet Archive , search "Revolution 9 Isolated"
I think Stars On 45 would have benefitted from the inclusion of Revolution 9 in their Beatles medley. The closing seconds of Strawberry Fields Forever would sound good there too. Like bacon, a good clap track makes everything better.
lol. Clap tracks were brutal. I was relieved when they went out of fashion, it got pretty bad in the 70s. I wouldn't mind hearing some bacon though, a sizzle track.
Revolution 9 is interesting once in a blue just because I know it's on a Beatles album. If it were any other band or even on a solo Lennon album, I would never be motivated to listen to it. I think this applies to most who defend it
I honestly can not understand how you can make this leap from your own experience to prejudge "most who defend it."
That's why I said most and not all. I'll stand by assumption that most who defend it are die hard Beatles fans and not casual listeners
Maybe so. Hard to tell without the data. From what little I can see in these Rev 9 threads it is mostly diehard Beatle fans who feel the track was a stain on their otherwise perfect record.
