Why Isn't ' Rubber Soul ' Our Favourite Beatles Album ?

The thread is about a Beatles album.

...

Gawd.

Yes, the "arts" do all those things. You could make the case, and people have at least since "Growing Up With The Beatles" (1977?) that The Beatles "memorialized" teen-to-young-adult thought through the sixties. And though I love The Beatles' music, listen to if often, am sometimes vaguely inspired by this or that, I'm still very aware I'm listening to records.

And...Rubber Soul is a record. An important one in poprock. A landmark even. Highly influential. But a record none the less. Only a couple of tracks rise to the rarefied level of "arts" to me: In My Life, for sure...Drive My Car? Nah. Still like it a lot, though.

There is not just a little bit of irony here, i.e. what constitutes a repressive regime? People are going after Run For Your Life, Little Child, etc., around here and elsewhere as though they had some kind of momentous impact and influence and meaning and may need censoring and/or canceling. It's an amazing thing to behold, at least for a person of my vintage. Of course this time it begins in social media, not an official "regime" but a social one, then when it reaches sufficient velocity, the de-facto authorities step in and "dissappear" the thought contraband like the after-the-fact airbrushed photos of so many of Stalin's friends and associates when they became "enemies of the revolution." Like I said, amazing stuff, even concerning records released 56 years ago.

Actually, the "arts" as concerns poprock in the mid-1960s, most times is or was luxury or confectionery. That some of it emerged meaningful is a happy accident by dint of people, like Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starr wanting their pop to become art. That's why I harp about context. For the longest time it was considered by the suits to be teen throwaway music, a cash grab at teen discretionary income. That started in the second half of the '50s when the huge 40s baby boom resulted in a huge surplus of teens that had some consumer cash. Note all the songs that have "teen" in the titles.

Talk about "building communities" -- those records flat screamed "you're a community! We care! Buy this!"

That pop could be included in the category "the arts" or as "art" was a long evolution. Still, even today I doubt there are many jurisdictions that include making pop records a part of their "support for the arts" curriculum. Maybe I'm wrong.

On that I agree.

 

Oh, hard disagree on that -- I love the line in "Getting Better". To me, it's real and it's human and it gives a fairly lightweight song an unexpected bit of...complexity? Depth? Not sure what word I'd ideally choose, but there's something special about it.

And, if you want to talk social responsibility and the like, I'd be willing to wager that at least one or two people have been stopped in their tracks by that line and thought to themselves "Hang on, I've been a complete bastard". I don't see that as the responsibility of art, or a yardstick by which it should be judged, but...there's something in that moment that I think might have actually reached someone. It's the opposite of holier-than-thou art, and yet it's self-aware, which is what makes it so great.

 

Yes, but my question ("Are you talking about pop music specifically, or the arts in general?") was specifically in reply to this statement of yours:

Had you talked about "people who look to the Beatles", my response would have reflected that. Your assertion was general, about "entertainers", and so my question was too -- because I didn't know (and still don't know) whether your statement is meant to apply equally to Bach, to John Coltrane, to Goethe and Emily Dickinson and Shakespeare, etc., and to group them in as "entertainers".

(After all, there are plenty of people who think that music -- and all the arts -- are just entertainment, a frivolity to be enjoyed but not really "real" in the way that power, science, guns, and such things are "real". If a person thinks that, then further discussion is pointless.)

See, I don't share that kind of binary, either/or attitude. Frivolity and fun, "high art" and seriousness, "records" and Beethoven's Third -- all are on the same continuum to me, with no firm boundaries between them -- and it's not really a continuum, more like a massive, ungraphable sprawl.

(But I agree, certainly, that "In My Life" has something special and arresting about it -- call it depth, pathos, or whatever you like, it's special. Then again, the lyrics of "Drive My Car" may not be deep, but the music has some wild stuff happening -- in some ways it's one of the most adventurous Beatles songs.)

Aha, here's the crux: I think that last part is a falsehood. Literally no one is calling for "censoring and/or canceling". People just think the song sucks and its content -- or message, if you like -- sucks. Isn't that their right, to say so and think so?

I'm getting way more of a repressive, censorship vibe from people who are offended by that opinion and (apparently) don't want to have to read it because they feel criticized when other people don't like a song on an album they've decided is perfection incarnate, or whatever the issue is.

Sure, it's reasonable to say that pop/rock was light entertainment, basically speaking, through the mid-1960s. And it was also, at times, profound and rich in ways that rival any art ever made. It was a profit-making vehicle, and a form of self-expression; it was totally inauthentic, and totally authentic; it was trash (in the "kitsch" sense), and treasure too.

 

I personally find "Run for your Life" unimpressive -- probably the least interesting track on the album. It's a pity they didn't replace this one and "What Goes On" or "Wait" with "Day Tripper" and "We Can Work it Out".

Still, the violent lyrics are fictional. They are reflective of popular culture of the ear. Similar threatening lyrics are featured in blues, tango and other forms of popular music.

What we now consider to be acceptable may not be perceived that way 50 years from now.

Whether Lennon was abusive or not with women at some point in his life is another point altogether IMO.

 

If we're talking UK Rubber Soul, I think its a good album with an interesting vibe, more laid back with a concentration of soul and folky arrangements. But it's not without its down moments, I really dislike drive my car and I still don't understand why it was chosen as the album opener. I personally find it really campy and ruins the vibe of the album from the start, and I'm not a fan of What Goes On or Run For Your Life either. With the Lennon/Run For Your Life debate, I fall on the side of it's a whatever song musically, but with the misogynist lyrics it really doesn't help making the listening experience any more comfortable knowing that even if the story told in this song is fiction, it's not far fetched to relate it to Lennon's real life treatment of women pre-Yoko.

 

substitute "White Album" for "Rubber Soul"

 

Death songs are ok if they are like 3rd person old story songs (example---Tom Dooley, Long Black Veil, Rocky Raccoon).

The problem is when the "I" word comes in and it seems to be in the present or future tense.

 

Why is that a problem? It's a song and the fact that this thread is getting derailed by people making claims against John Lennon or fans of this song is absurd. Unless John Lennon actually killed or attempted to kill someone then there should be no problem with these lyrics as there's a thousand other songs just as violent lyrically. If the case is that we should take more concern for how tied to these lyrics John's personal life was than I think a song like "Little Child" is equally concerning and creepy

 

I don't see as much reaction against, or personal criticism of, people disliking other songs for other reasons. You are free to love it to the skies. I have always disliked it. Learning about the writer and his own thoughts on his creation helped me place it in a context that was ultimately positive, not negative, though the lyrics were obviously negative. Further context is fine but with only the aim of normalizing something obviously negative with 'what about this' or 'what about that' other backward violent song's lyrics? Not really.

 

Now I have to reply to myself here, as Tom Dooley is indeed a first-person murder song ("I met her on the mountain...I stabbed her with my knife") but that song went to #1 in 1958 and arguably started the folk boom. So who is to say that death doesn't appeal to some/many?

Of course, that was back in those violent old days...

 

Tom Dooley is going to die, maybe people are satisfied by there being a conclusion? Also you are asked to consider the third person subject, how does one judge this Tom Dooley? Or the guy in Folsom prison who shot a man in Reno who now feels pain.

 

I like that one. If you substitute something else, it's not as good. "Little Woman.....little woman won't you dance with me..."

Maybe a girl's name would work. "Cyn-thi-a...won't you dance with me...." "Julia"....no, thats no good either.

 

We're dealing with two competing definitions of the word "problem" here. I think you (and others) are taking it as some sort of cancel culture thing, but "problem" can just mean "I think these are lazy, crappy lyrics, and having them come from a guy who hit women makes it even harder to put up with them".

Pop music sells not just an artist's music, but their persona. Through 1965, John Lennon and the Beatles made money by marketing and presenting themselves in a particular way. Run For Your Life clashes with that persona, badly -- it just doesn't fit, and there's no real upside. With John Lennon's admitted history of domestic violence, it makes a bad combination.

As for whether John Lennon ever killed or attempted to kill someone, Pauline Sutcliffe certainly thought so! Setting that aside, he beat the crap out of Bob Wooler for insinuating that he'd slept with Brian Epstein. We're talking about someone who had a real violent streak and repeatedly described himself that way, and who (to his credit) faced it and dealt with it.

EDIT: And to be crystal-clear, here's a quote from JL himself:

"He’d insinuated that me and Brian had had an affair in Spain. I was out of me mind with drink. You know, when you get down to the point where you want to drink out of all the empty glasses, that drunk. And he was saying, ‘Come on, John, tell me’ – something like that – ‘Tell me about you and Brian, we all know.’ And obviously I must have been frightened of the f-- in me to get so angry. You know, when you’re twenty-one, you want to be a man, and all that. If somebody said it now, I wouldn’t give a s---. So I was beating the s--- out of him, and hitting him with a big stick, too, and it was the first time I thought, ‘I can kill this guy.’ I just saw it, like on a screen – that if I hit him once more, that was going to be it."

 

Has anyone effectively told people who don't like What Goes On to essentially shut up after bringing it up to say how much they love it (unlike it's author)? I love What Goes On, I don't mind if others think it stinks for whatever reason. You can criticize it and Ringo's voice or whatever else about him for pages and pages, why should I mind?

And again, I think John Lennon is a great person for people to learn about his life, the things he overcame, his ability for self analyses. He made a lot of great art that will last for ages in my opinion.

 

I love RUN FOR YOUR LIFE! To millions of fans, RUBBER SOUL , specially the original, longer and better sounding UK pressing, is the best Beatles album.

 

People take some things too damn literally.

 

Run For Your Life is a totally great song.

 

My favourite Beatles period is 65-66 so yeah, along with Revolver, RS is a tier 1 Beatles for.me for shure.

 

I’ve got the US pressing for some reason (I bought it in England) and the track listing is different. There is no Drive My Car on it which is a big miss

 

I'd keep 'Run For Your Life' in there. A favorite of mine. It even was one of George's favorites.

 

There seems to be a strong dislike for several songs on 'Rubber Soul '

' What Goes On ' is almost mercilessly maligned. I don't understand the dislike. It's in the same vein as ' Honey Don't ' and ' Matchbox' . Perfect Ringo ...unless you don't like Ringo. And if you don't love Ringo you don't love The Beatles.

' The Word ' is taking a beating too. Huh?

'Run For Your Life '....well , you know.

' Wait ' --- oh , it's a ' Help ' leftover.

And more and more I 'm hearing and reading many negative comments about ' Drive My Car '.
I think this is a top tier Beatles song and a brilliant opener for the real album.

 

Top tier album, absolutely.

But... there’s a difference between loving Ringo and loving every one of the songs he sings on a Beatles album.

For my money, while I don’t hold any particularly strong feelings for it either way, “What Goes On” is the weak spot on the album. And not just because Ringo sings (narrates, more like) it.

 

There's the answer, nothing means anything, and now we like everything and everyone. Welcome to paradise!

 

I couldn't care less about cancel culture. This song and album can't be cancelled for me. I'm coming from the perspective that a poster earlier in the thread implied that people who like and defend this song are in some way creepy and are ok with abuse towards females. That's absurd. As far as it not fitting The Beatles persona, maybe, but you just countered your own point by implying it does indeed for John's persona.
Johns slapping his ex wife once as a young man and almost beating up a guy for accusing him of a homosexual affair with his manager has zero bearing on this particular song