45 years since the Beatles' Sole Underrated Album...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

asr

Acrobat
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
396
A Hard Day's Night, in my opinion is their first truely great album. It's also their first without any covers [a further plus for me]. People always rave about the Beatles' work from Rubber Soul onwards. But from the opening, loud strum of that 12-string Rickenbacher of the title track to the poignent, closing 'I'll Be Back,' this record grabs the listener, makes him/her endure the energy and joy along with the four boys, and never lets go until the end when John Lennon warns/threatens/promises that he will return.

Equal to Rubber Soul, Revolver, White Album, and Abbey Road, but much better than Sgt. Pepper-which I think is their most overrated.

It's just a shame that this is not on any of those redundant media lists of the greatest RnR albums of all time.
 
Equal to Rubber Soul, Revolver, White Album, and Abbey Road, but much better than Sgt. Pepper-which I think is their most overrated.


megaeyerollvg5.gif
 
That might be THE most awesome thing I have ever seen.

I love A Hard Day's Night. Love it.
 
A Hard Day's Night is regularly regarded as The Beatles' finest pre-Rubber Soul release, so I wouldn't say it's underrated, although I suppose such distinctions are based on subjectivity anyway. All I know is that Help kicks its ass.
 
I love a few songs on Hard Day's Night, but I think I prefer Beatles For Sale?

And yes, Help does trump both of them. That's where the real growth came, IMO. The title track alone marks an inward-looking (and self-critical) approach that really was remarkable for the time. And of course that went even deeper on Rubber Soul.

Each new album really built on the last one until you reach the White Album, which is a bit of a tour of the band's past.
 
I haven't listened to the albums from before Rubber Soul enough to have a concrete opinion on them.

As for the later albums:

01. Abbey Road
02. The White Album
03. The Magical Mystery Tour
04. Let It Be/Let It Be Naked
05. Revolver
06. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
07. Rubber Soul

So, for me, Sgt. Pepper's is overrated. It's very good, yes. But I like others much more.
 
I would argue that, relative to other Beatles releases, Magical Mystery Tour and Rubber Soul are truly underrated. They're my second and third favorites respectively (with Abbey Road taking the top spot). However, in the grand scheme of things, nothing the Beatles ever released is truly underrated. Perhaps the early releases are unfairly overlooked relative to their later work, though not necessarily underrated.
 
I would argue that, relative to other Beatles releases, Magical Mystery Tour and Rubber Soul are truly underrated. They're my second and third favorites respectively (with Abbey Road taking the top spot). However, in the grand scheme of things, nothing the Beatles ever released is truly underrated. Perhaps the early releases are unfairly overlooked relative to their later work, but not necessarily underrated.

With The Magical Mystery Tour, they have the big singles, the avant garde, and the fun quirky pop. Not as cohesive as Abbey Road or as sprawling as The White Album, though. If the lesser-known songs on an album are Your Mother Should Know, Baby You're A Rich Man, Blue Jay Way, Flying, and The Fool On The Hill, it's a pretty damn brilliant album.
 
Sgt. Pepper's is easy to peg as overrated when it's normally talked about as The Greatest Album of All Time. And it's true that on a song-by-song basis, it looks weak in comparison to several other Beatles albums. No one's going to argue that Lovely Rita, Good Morning, or Mr. Kite are amazing songs. However, as a complete listening experience, I don't find it overrated it all. It's a stunning achievement that is about as sophisticated as pop music gets, and it doesn't bother me at all that it has the standing it does.

I mean, even if one feels Revolver is a more pleasurable listen (and I put it on more often that Sgt. Pepper's), could you even begin to make a rational argument that its follow-up was somehow a step down? No way.
 
It's their first truly great album because the couple that preceded it were stuffed with covers which don't really count towards an album's greatness in my opinion.

It is indeed a great album is A Hard Day's Night. 27 mins of killer tunes. Some fine songs on there. I actually would prefer Help with the removal of the two covers on there, and Please Please Me, Beatles For Sale and With The Beatles still feature some stunning tunes. It Won't Be Long, Please Please Me, Every Little Thing, There's A Place....and shouldn't be overlooked. A Hard Day's Night is much more appealing because it is an entire album of Beatles originals. Early Beatles in general is underappreciated in my book.

I hesitate to consider Magical Mystery Tour as an album, it really is an EP, with various singles and b-sides tacked on the end of it for completist's sake. Not a bad thing, it is their finest "collection of songs" in my reckoning, yet just wasn't an album. Revolver is their best album for me.
 
In my personal opinion, "Revolver" is the sole over-rated album in The Beatles' catalogue. It is the only album whose reputation seems to be completely sacrosanct, as though every song is unassailable. That being said, I find the album to be a tremendous achievement, just not quite as brilliant as its reputation suggests.
 
I'm going to preface this post by saying that I love Revolver. It is, song-for-song, arguably their strongest album. However, something has always seemed off about that record to me. I think the problem is that it truly is a transitional record in every sense of the word, and, to me, it lacks an identity. It's too eclectic. And while this wouldn't be a problem if absolutely every song was perfect, that's really not quite the case. No Beatles record lacks a weak link or two, and Revolver is no exception, which is more harmful to it than it would be to, say, Sgt. Pepper, which I believe is a stronger listening experience overall.
 
Well, this being 'A Hard Day's Night' appreciation thread, I'm interested in reading more opinion about this album.
 
that being said, almost all of their early work tends to be underrated when compared to their later work. People tend to dismiss it as disposable when it's far from that.

Yes, absolutely.

I think Sgt. Pepper was named as BEST ALBUM EVAH in so many polls and whatnot for so long, it came to be overrated.

More recently Revolver seems to have taken over that BEST ALBUM EVAH (or at least best Beatles album) in some polls and whatnot, and maybe it's starting to feel overrated as well.

Just a theory not based in any sort of scientific proof other than my own memory of seeing Sgt Pepper's at the top of many lists for a long time.
 
I'm going to preface this post by saying that I love Revolver. It is, song-for-song, arguably their strongest album. However, something has always seemed off about that record to me. I think the problem is that it truly is a transitional record in every sense of the word, and, to me, it lacks an identity. It's too eclectic. And while this wouldn't be a problem if absolutely every song was perfect, that's really not quite the case. No Beatles record lacks a weak link or two, and Revolver is no exception, which is more harmful to it than it would be to, say, Sgt. Pepper, which I believe is a stronger listening experience overall.

Very well put.

Sgt. Pepper's also slants a bit towards Paul's material, which makes it less enjoyable for me. John only has four tracks here--two masterpieces, a novelty (albeit a cool one) and a real clunker. Revolver only has one more Lennon composition, but there's not a weak link, and they all rock. Tomorrow Never Knows is a mind-blower, and I'm Only Sleeping is probably one of my Top 5 Lennon songs.
 
Back
Top Bottom