I like the Acustic of it.
The 1 guitar for the Whole Entier lp was good-sweet & not too much info or to long.
I would have rather seen it like that.
I know George & Ringo said it could be 2 differant lps(The White & Whiter--Ringo)

Paul stated it's ok then state(It's the Bloody Beatles--It's great)

Hmm... it was a little long. I don't know how "Revolution #9" made it on. Lennon must have worn the pants at the time. The album is so eclectic and sporadic that I don't think it would play well as a scaled down single album. It has its definite faults, but it still ranks up there with one of their best, warts and all. Plus it shows that the band was falling apart. No cohesion, no unity again until "Abbey Road."

Quoted from raxo

Child Of Nature
Not Guilty
Soar Milk Sea
Circles
Mean Mr Mustard
Polithene Pam
Across The Universe
What's The New Mary Jane
for example ... and maybe others too ...

Look At Me
Junk  

... and I forgot about Paul's Cosmically Conscious!

Ringo said the 2 albums could have been called the White Album and the Whiter album.

Revolution #9 should have been scrapped and the 45 single put in its place.

I think that this album was one of the best! I love it. It`s not too long.

For me, it's the old 'Side 4' that really makes it a great album - Revolution #1 is great, Honey Pie a wonderful pastiche of the 1920's music that was being played by the Bonzo's, Savoy Truffle I love with it's strange muddy production and snappy rhythms - and Cry Baby Cry, Revolution #9 & Good Night making a fantastic bitter sweet end to the whole musical journey.
The only part of the White Album I tend to skip is the middle of the old side 2 - Piggies, WDWDIITR, Don't Pass Me By.

As Sir George Martin put it in "Anthology"........"the White Album would have been a spectacular single disc album, but as is, a fine double disc album"..........something to that effect.
To me, the "White Album" is probably my favorite album due to the fact of all the different styles, songs, "individual insights/thoughts/songs" that went onto the record.  Totally different than anything the Beatles ever did, totally avant-garde.

I definately don't think it was too long.  There were some ground breaking songs and some other just plain amazing songs!!  I wouldn't change any part of it   (not even adding Hey Jude!)

What an interesting question.  I like the White Album very much but I always go back and forth on whether there should have been less songs.  It is a well-done album overall, but there are some songs that detract from it ("Revolution 9," "Don't Pass Me By," "Wild Honey Pie," etc.).  Sometimes I think I could live without those songs but I would hate to "chop up" a Beatles album.  For instance, I don't like "Revolution 9" because it's boring to me, but it also has a very peculiar and distinctive aura which fits in well with the album's disjointed character.

On the other hand, I enjoy that there are so many different things going on in this album--we've got rock, country, blues, Paul's "granny" music (haha), folk, avant-garde/experimental, pop, ballads, etc....and even a lullaby!!  So it is amazing to think of the Beatles' unbridled creativity during this period and how well they pulled the album together considering the different musical directions they were exploring.

Quoted from Penny Lane

For instance, I don't like "Revolution 9" because it's boring to me, but it also has a very peculiar and distinctive aura which fits in well with the album's disjointed character.

Exactly. The album is rather like a "disjoined character" and thats what I dont like it about it. There is no flow between the songs.

Quoted from Penny Lane

On the other hand, I enjoy that there are so many different things going on in this album--we've got rock, country, blues, Paul's "granny" music (haha), folk, avant-garde/experimental, pop, ballads, etc....and even a lullaby!!  So it is amazing to think of the Beatles' unbridled creativity during this period and how well they pulled the album together considering the different musical directions they were exploring.

I agree, it is very interesting musically and it does show where they stood at that time, but as something to listen to for pleasure, I would have thought halving it would be better.

too long? it is for me, i prefer a 35 min album like With the Beatles. not a great fan of
double albums anyway!  

Quoted from Andy Smith

not a great fan of double albums anyway!  

Neither am I. One silly reason is that they dont fit in my CD tower thing....

Not "too long:"" too much filler."

Quoted from Kaleidoscope_Eyes

The album is rather like a "disjoined character" and thats what I dont like it about it. There is no flow between the songs.

Since reading this thread, I've spoken to a non-Beatles friend who stumbled across the first half of the White Album years ago.  He listened to it without knowing it was a true Beatles album--rather, as he said to me, he thought it was a poorly put-together compilation of their songs.  Basically, to his ears, it sounded as though someone took a bunch of different-sounding Beatles songs and slapped them together on an album.  He liked most the songs okay, I think, but was not impressed enough to seek out more Beatles music.  (Which is a shame. )

What a different point of view that was to me.  I've never thought that the White Album could sound more like a "bad" compilation record than a proper album, but I can probably understand why it would sound that way to a new listener.

As with Sgt. Peppers, it is such a shame they used to omit the singles from the albums. Imagine the White Album without Revolution 9 and Wild Honey Pie and instead include Hey Jude and Lady Madonna. Or Revolution.