Kinks' Ray Davies' review of The Beatles' Revolver

[adamzero]

Christgau writes: "A good Lennon-McCartney song is sufficiently cryptic to speak to the needs of whoever listens. . . .  It really doesn't matter; if you're wrong, you're right.

It also serves as a gnomic reminder of the limitations of criticism. Allow me to fall into its trap by providing my own paraphrase, viz.: 'In matters of interpretation, the important thing is not whether you're `wrong' or `right' but whether you are faithful to your own peculiar stance in the world. Those who insist upon the absolute rectitude of their opinions will never attain a state of enlightenment.'"
_______________________________________________________________________________

Christgau is right in spite of his being wrong with the last statement.  The openness to interpretation is the genius of the Beatles--like any great art.  His "limitations" of criticism are self-imposed.  What critics don't want to admit is that their personal opinions are just that--personal.  Especially when it comes to something as mercurial and intuitive as song.  

Unfortunately, unless the critic puts on his/her armor of rectitude (of having a "valid" or objectively "justifiable" opinion--this album is good, that one is shite), then in our culture dominated by its self-fabrication of the patriarchal monolithic Great Monad we discount the critic.  We want judgment--to know that something's "ultimately" good or bad first.  Not how it made us feel or what it emotionally/psychically "did" for us.   Or the problem raised by the fiction of "ultimate-ness" to begin with.

How can you review a great album after the first or seventh listen?  What makes it "great" in the first place beyond your personal connection to it?  

[The End]

this tune (TNK) was infact re-done by Chemical Brothers and Noel gallagher I believe a few years back. Was quite a hit on the dance scene. I

Yeah, Setting Sun that was a great track. Was TNK credited on this track though? Normally it would say in the songwriting credits "contains elements of...". They do sound very similar, especially the drums and vocal track.

[nimrod]

Was Revolver well received at the time? I know Sgt. Pepper got much more critical praise when it came out. I think Revolver was somewhat dismissed initially,but got better and better reviews as time went on. It's aged much better than Pepper as far as reviews go.

Speaking as someone who was around at the time (albeit a kid) I dont remember any Beatle album being dismissed, quite the opposite in fact, in England it seemed like the whole populace (under 30) was baying for the next LP, and I remember Revolver as being hailed as another masterpiece.

As for Rays review, theres no harm in giving your honest opinions. In context of the times, there was rivalry, I think John had dismissed the Kinks as garbage if memory serves me well and I think Ray felt badly done to by Pye and The Kinks management, he was writing songs easily as good as Lennon & McCartney but his band were not as universally acknowledged.
And when everyone first heard Tomorrow Never Knows in 1966 it did sound like rubbish, pure rubbish with no melody, just a boring repetitive drum beat, hence his disco remark and the possibility that G Martin had had nothing to do with it due to its lack of quality.

[Mr Mustard]

Was Revolver well received at the time? I know Sgt. Pepper got much more critical praise when it came out. I think Revolver was somewhat dismissed initially,but got better and better reviews as time went on. It's aged much better than Pepper as far as reviews go.

I was only a kid in 1966 so it all went over my head, but years later my dad (a big Beatles fan) told me about his attending a party just after Revolver had been released and there was quite a buzz going around about it, until the host played it - first time of hearing for many of the guests, apparently - and it got a rather puzzled/disappointed thumbs down. Couldn't dance to it? Not catchy enough? who knows. My theory is that it was their boldest departure from their winning formula to date. A lot of people just weren't ready.

When I first bought a copy (1970s) I remember actually disliking it. At that stage I hadn't heard my dad's party recollection. But it just wasn't "Beatley" to my ears...perhaps because, like so many of my generation, I was weaned on the red and blue albums - which are, respectively, remarkably generous towards Rubber Soul and Sgt. Pepper. Revolver doesn't get a look in, apart from the ER/YS single - both sides of which were sort of "novelty records" for The Beatles of that time and to my mind less representative of the album's feel and overall sound than either "Paperback Writer" or "Rain".

Revolver didn't capture the zeitgeist in anything like the same way as Sgt. Pepper did the following year; consequently it has dated rather better and has a kind of elusive timelessness which gets the cool kudos from the critics nowadays. For me personally though, there has never been a time when it was as good as, let alone better than, Pepper (or Rubber Soul, for that matter). It did soften up the audience/fan base to be more receptive to experimentation I suppose.

[Geoff Townsend]

Perhaps it should be read in the light of the Kinks' antipathy for the Beatles due to John's treatment of them on the same bill after You Really Got Me (see Ray's books) and the Kinks highjacking of top spot on NME poll concert (due to their lateness). Ray and Dave really set themselves against the Beatles' monolithic fame and what Ray saw as arrogance in John. (Although John loved "Wonder Boy " ( a Kinks "flop") and Waterloo Sunset was originally about Liverpool and a tribute to Merseyside bands.

[nimrod]

Wonder if Ray likes the remix version  ha2ha