Like most people I really like the originals. The acoustic, introspective country feel is very pleasing after the high octane shrill of a Hard Days Night.
It could have been so good, but the album is ruined for me by the covers. I did some quick checking, and the average age of the covers on Please Please Me was one year, with nothing more than two years old. By With The Beatles that age had slipped to four years, but four of the six were still from the sixties.
But by Beatles For Sale the age had dropped to seven years, with only one song from the sixties. For whatever reason they had to include covers, I think that in what was a fast changing music scene these old chestnuts just didn't belong on a 1964 album by a hip and happening band. If they had to do covers then fine, but did they have nothing more contempory? A lazy option, even for a band hard pressed for time.
Super post Kevin, you've pretty much nailed it for me (one caveat: nothing "shrill" - which I take to be a pejorative description - about "A Hard Day's Night"...."joyous" would be a more apposite adjective methinks). Hasty cover version padding and deadline pressures notwithstanding it's the sheer plunge in
energy which has given "Beatles For Sale" such a bad rap down the years I think.
I have always found it easy to slice "Beatles For Sale" in half between the very good, bordering on great, tracks and the frankly (by Beatle standards) disposable. Surprise surprise, the forgettable half comprises nearly all those painfully
dated (a point you made well which is rarely mentioned) cover versions. The one exception for me is the gorgeous "Words Of Love", but then we all know Buddy was
ahead of
his time, and John and Paul in such close harmony rarely misses the mark anyway.
Replace side two of "Help!" with the best seven from "Beatles For Sale" and you would have the most consistently excellent album they never made.