Is the Beatles Rubber Soul overlooked?

^  when I say 'better' I mean the real article - in this case folk musicians primarily in the US but also Britain - were better at writing the kind of ironic, cautionary and even grim folk-style lyrics than the Beatles [e.g. 'Norwegian Wood'] ; and yes in many ways better at blending folk music with pop.   Are you going to tell me that Paul McCartney and John Lennon wrote Folk lyrics superior to Dylan, Seeger, Guthrie, Collins, Stills, and Mitchell, or that Lennon/McCartney better ushered authentic folk into a pop market?   I don't think so.

Rubber Soul is a great album. Might not be up there with Dylan, at the time, but certainly as groundbreaking. In the original configuration (not the American version) we've got, amongst many others, Drive My Car, Nowhere Man, Girl, In My Life, and of course Michelle. I don't see how it'd be underrated, expect by those who just don't like The Beatles.

My favorites are The Word and Looking Through You.

One point no one has raised-
are we talking about the album as released in the UK or the USA?

I have always considered Revolver with the track listing released in the UK as a solid contender for the first prog album.

I love Rubber Soul. It is not overlooked in my peer group.
It's one Beatles album we all know of.

I grew up with the US version of "Rubber Soul" as one of the earliest records I had, I used to play it on a toy Fisher Price record player.  It's very different - instead of opening with the rocking "Drive My Car", it instead opened with the country folk of "I've Just Seen a Face" (which was on "Help" in the UK).  It gives the whole album a more rustic feel.  Plus, side two opened up with the subtle, pensive "It's Only Love" instead of the Ringo-sung "What Goes On".  In fact, if the UK Rubber Soul didn't have the superb "Nowhere Man" on it, I'd be tempted to give the US version the upper hand here.

earlyprog wrote: Overlooked (underestimated) relative to what?   Relative to:   - no. ratings? Yes, this is "first grade" prog - more PA members should know/rate this. - no. of special collabs and Prog Reviewers rating the album? IMO, Yes. How would it alter the rating? possibly upwards. - the year released? A pure 5.0 rating as - IMO - it is the best popular/mainstream album released up to 1965. - subsequent releases by The Beatles? No, not IMO. - innovation? yes! - overall rating? no. - my personal view? yes, it's better than Revolver as opposed to the ratings

Beatles for Sale is overlooked, IMHO. Despite a few clunkers on that record.

I'm not sure which version i have, but i think the album have some nice songs and some i really don't care about.
The songs were starting to be a little more interesting, but nothing special just yet, i consider it a transitional album.
The big leap was Revolver, where the writing was much interesting and adventurous, they left behind their happy clappy days and moved towards somewhere they have never been before. But this is just my opinion i understand why people like it more than i do.

Snow Dog wrote: chopper wrote: hobocamp wrote: One point no one has raised- are we talking about the album as released in the UK or the USA? . The UK version is how The Beatles intended the album to be. The US versions were always tailored up till Revolver. Up to and including Revolver. Which has three tracks missing in the US version. You probably know this.

All three of which are John Lennon-sung tracks, oddly enough.  That means on the US version John only sings two songs instead of five on the UK version.  Quite a difference.


Edited by HolyMoly - April 11 2012 at 11:38