Revolution 9

There is a YouTube blogger called JT Curtis whose videos I sometimes watch. He is probably best known for a video series about (mostly American) rock history (it is fun to watch, but it focuses on too few subgenres, and he often ignores the more experimental corners for instance; plus I clearly miss a wider geographic horizon - but it is well told, no doubt about that).

But some time ago he posted a top 10 of what he considers the all time worst Beatles songs, and No. 1 is "Revolution 9". It is introduced with the words that it "probably comes as a surprise to no one"; meaning that everyone is supposed to dislike it strongly.

Now, I genuinely love "Revolution 9", it's one of my favourite tracks from the White Album, and I was actually surprised that it was that unpopular. It's quite an oddity in their output for sure, but the more I listen to it, the more fascinating it gets. It takes time to get into it, but you graduately begin to sense a musical structure from the seemingly random cacophony of sounds.

Is is me who is crazy, or is it just other people who have a conservative concept of music?

It's not surprising that it's voted the worst given that it's so different to the rest of their output and it's not something that the average "She Loves You" lover is going to like.

I'm sure I've seen somewhere else that "Mr Moonlight" was voted their worst.

Hi,

To me, the folks that "hate it" are the ones that are not aware of the arts and their influence in The Beatles and many other folks involved. In some ways, Sgt Pepper's cover is about a lot of that ... but, in general, it went on to confuse us to now know, or have any idea what it all meant ... but essentially, it was like saying ... it's all art ... regardless of how we think and look at it. I would say that "Revolution #9 is one piece that stood up and out for that ... at the mercy of it not being a "song" that folks that are the least knowledgeable about music history, have a tendency to think that a song is more important than the rest. But that thought forgets that some folks are not "interested" in the arts per se ... (Bob Dylan) ... but he also knows that what he does has nothing to do with the "arts" ... and he just puts words together ... so to speak! In the "process" he ends up being an artist and will be remembered for it!

At the time, there was a lot of what I would call "anti-art" ... and many things, like Andy Warhol were around and abound, "debunking" what art was supposed to be. I, personally, do not like that drugs are the reason why something like Revolution #9 took place, specially when it is the one piece where drugs would not be necessary, and its "live" rendition of our world ... as a sort of "non-song" ... was done. John Lennon was very aware of a lot of arts, and he spent time seeing a lot of it (he met Yoko in an art show, btw ... see Tonite We All Love in London) ... but in all reality he could not say a whole lot, because anyone would be inundated by the press, made famous for 15 minutes, and then dumped in the nearest toxic location ... and then blamed on the drugs or drink! 

I find it facile, stupid and insulting, when all someone can link to the music, or the arts, is some dope, and render that artist an idiot that would not know a song from his own _______ ... and for us to sit here and "criticize" each other when we are inferring some kind of idea and thoughts from, is kinda crazy ... but saying that it is all drugs is just as bad and out of line ... there were many people at the time that were NOT on drugs, and they also played music and created many things ... how about Mr. Fripp? Heck, even Toyah, and she came from a theater background (sort of) and someone like Derek Jarman, who did not need drugs to give you some of the most incredible images in film for many years! 

It wasn't all drugs. Marat/Sade was not about drugs ... it was about an important social/philosophical theme, that we don't like to discuss. And it helped the scene tremendously with the dressing and costumes and the colors. And movies too to it immediately. And the RSC became famous for its outlandish shows and amazing performances. Not many drugs, and even Marianne Faithfull does not talk much about it, how she could do several performances and be ripped ... she likely had to stay clear for a while to do these things ... because no director in his right mind will EVER take someone that won't learn the lines and do the job ... too many out there want to chance!

I find it sad and silly that John Lennon, or Paul, or George, could only do something in the studio if they were ripped ... like the Abbey Road folks would allow that much dope around their massive studio and very expensive equipment ... it doesn't add up ... and some folks would have been thrown out for it, or asked to come back another time! Because someone said that he/she was doing this at the time, does not mean that they were on it 24/7 ... and to me, it is plain weird that it is thought that somehow these people lived on it all 24/7 ... and then created what they did ... it doesn't add up ... unless it is being told by someone that never did any of it, and is inventing comments that seem to be popular with a religious identity and book.

Reality creates a book ... although some books can preface and even give us a hint of things to come ... but the great things in "art" are those that mirrored what we see and ignore each and every second of each day in our lives!

Didn't Berry Oakley die in a motorcycle accident like Duane Allman?