Revolver - Side A - Round 2

[Marky Dread]

Here's a quote from Pete Townshend about it...

I think 'Eleanor Rigby' was a very important musical move forward. It certainly inspired me to write and listen to things in that vein.

It doesn't me at all that PT would be impressed, given that his own inclinations were to marry pop to approved, classical formats. But it's not forward-moving at all. It's about, fundamentally, taking a rebellious, outsider music—one sniffed at by old people—and proving its worth to them. It's seeking a seat inside the church of respectability. The songs may sound nice and all, but it's not a step forward at all—it's step away from rock as outsider music. I'm not dismissing it as illegitimate, only that it's conservative as hell.

It's very experimental, using a double string quartet arrangement by George Martin and breaking free of the constraints of popular music conventions. No it's not rock 'n' roll but it's taking the pop format to new horizons and that is forward thinking. A very important song in pop's progression. Very daring track that says pop music needs no boundaries.

[Dr. Medulla]

Here's a quote from Pete Townshend about it...

I think 'Eleanor Rigby' was a very important musical move forward. It certainly inspired me to write and listen to things in that vein.

It doesn't me at all that PT would be impressed, given that his own inclinations were to marry pop to approved, classical formats. But it's not forward-moving at all. It's about, fundamentally, taking a rebellious, outsider music—one sniffed at by old people—and proving its worth to them. It's seeking a seat inside the church of respectability. The songs may sound nice and all, but it's not a step forward at all—it's step away from rock as outsider music. I'm not dismissing it as illegitimate, only that it's conservative as hell.

It's very experimental, using a double string quartet arrangement by George Martin and breaking free of the constraints of popular music conventions. No it's not rock 'n' roll but it's taking the pop format to new horizons and that is forward thinking. A very important song in pop's progression. Very daring track that says pop music needs no boundaries.

Play that record to grandma in 1966. Which song is she going to react more favourably to: "Eleanor Rigby" or "Tomorrow Never Knows"? There's your answer as to how radical and experimental ER is. One song seeks the approval of a pre-rock n roll audience or stuffy old critics, to show that rock musicians can make "good music," like in the old days, and put behind them what my mother called "that bang bang bang music." The other says rock musicians can make even stranger, unsettling music, to challenge what we even think is music. Expanding pop's palette into older, more familiar styles isn't the same thing as forward thinking. Nobody had their mind blown by ER.

[Marky Dread]

Here's a quote from Pete Townshend about it...

I think 'Eleanor Rigby' was a very important musical move forward. It certainly inspired me to write and listen to things in that vein.

It doesn't me at all that PT would be impressed, given that his own inclinations were to marry pop to approved, classical formats. But it's not forward-moving at all. It's about, fundamentally, taking a rebellious, outsider music—one sniffed at by old people—and proving its worth to them. It's seeking a seat inside the church of respectability. The songs may sound nice and all, but it's not a step forward at all—it's step away from rock as outsider music. I'm not dismissing it as illegitimate, only that it's conservative as hell.

It's very experimental, using a double string quartet arrangement by George Martin and breaking free of the constraints of popular music conventions. No it's not rock 'n' roll but it's taking the pop format to new horizons and that is forward thinking. A very important song in pop's progression. Very daring track that says pop music needs no boundaries.

Play that record to grandma in 1966. Which song is she going to react more favourably to: "Eleanor Rigby" or "Tomorrow Never Knows"? There's your answer as to how radical and experimental ER is. One song seeks the approval of a pre-rock n roll audience or stuffy old critics, to show that rock musicians can make "good music," like in the old days, and put behind them what my mother called "that bang bang bang music." The other says rock musicians can make even stranger, unsettling music, to challenge what we even think is music. Expanding pop's palette into older, more familiar styles isn't the same thing as forward thinking. Nobody had their mind blown by ER.

Why are you making the comparison of ER to TNK? They are both forward thinking and both brilliant in their own ways.

So what if grandma would like one more than the other. Both those tracks on the same album is just awesome to show what the band can achieve in the studio.
As to grandma, mine would've hated both.

How you think that ER is an "older, more familiar style" is beyond me. What songs do you offer up as evidence that ER wasn't anything but modern pop at the time.

You seem to be saying that because TNK is a stranger listening experience it somehow makes ER sound old?

I think ER is equally as mind blowing in it's brilliance for a pop song.

[Dr. Medulla]

Okay, I give up and quit. ER is radical as fuck. Nothing more confounding to the ear than violins and cellos. Mad Men really should have used that to show that the world was getting a lot weirder.

[Marky Dread]

Okay, I give up and quit. ER is radical as fuck. Nothing more confounding to the ear than violins and cellos. Mad Men really should have used that to show that the world was getting a lot weirder.

That's just it. ER was radical for a pop song. The age of those instruments used isn't relevant. This was a great pop song incorporating orchestral sounds. TNK isn't a pop song it's an experiment in sound and techniques, it's brilliant for sure no argument here. But ER was the song that got in the ear of the masses and showed others what is possible in a pop song.

As to Mad Men they could've just as easily picked something a bit less obvious than The Beatles.

[Wolter]

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but strings were in pop music all the time before ER. Just not often the pop teens in the 60s were used to. I think it did expand the palette, but much like Paul’s music hall tastes, it was more reviving old forms in synthesis with modern production techniques than deeply revolutionary.

I think ER is perfectly fine in the context of Revolver, but it’s also the song I most commonly forget is from Revolver.

[Inder]

All I want to know is whether I need to file Pet Sounds under "choral" now.

[Marky Dread]

All I want to know is whether I need to file Pet Sounds under "choral" now.

Progressive Pop. Which is surely where The Beatles were going with ER.

[Marky Dread]

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but strings were in pop music all the time before ER. Just not often the pop teens in the 60s were used to. I think it did expand the palette, but much like Paul’s music hall tastes, it was more reviving old forms in synthesis with modern production techniques than deeply revolutionary.

I think ER is perfectly fine in the context of Revolver, but it’s also the song I most commonly forget is from Revolver.

Oh for sure strings had been used as backing in arrangements for a long time before that, but ER pushed them into the culture of rock and pop.

I love ER and TNK but neither track is my favourite on the album.

Also I too often forget that ER is on Revolver. Not because It's not memorable but because I play the soundtrack (songtrack) album a lot.