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,

Bullsh*t!

Just do downtown with a small recorder and turn it on and walk around for 20 minutes, past a stadium, and a restaurant ... and when you get home, you have your own "Revolution #10", and you can edit a little bit here and there to make it more concise ... but if you need to drop anything for this ... no comment!

I always believed that it was done INTENTIONALLY, since the "fans" were starting to "tell the Beatles" what they wanted, and it was a coup de grace .... that they decided and agreed to add something that ... "had no meaning" or "story" to tell ... an every day event ... and in a small way ... give us all the finger ... 

However, in the end, it also showed that the independent and individuality was now alive and it showed in the album and then in their later work ... the whole thing was falling a part ... since if all 4 Beatles had done the same walk and recorded it, things would have been different more than likely!

The fact that we "believe" that all songs and crap have to have a meaning is at the core of all this ... and if you need to drop acid or go take a toke of the whiff ... go ahead ... but the point will not only be missed ... it will be ignored!  

Hi,

F*ck off. 

To quote Jim Morrison, "This is the best part of the trip....the best part....I really like."

"I need a fix 'cause I'm going down...."

Lennon had graduated from acid to snorting heroin with Yoko by 1968.

Great snarling riff in that one.

I love it, too, but it doesn't surprise me one bit that the majority doesn't. I don't know why, but I have some kind of "automatic empathy" when I listen to music with other people. I often feel what they feel, I don't mean I hate it when they hate it, but rather I can feel how it makes them hate it even if I love it. This gives me much intuitive understanding for tastes that are very different from mine. This kind of stuff... I see their faces and a big question mark or even the impulse to run away in their eyes and I get it. I'm here to stay but they won't...

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!

Your attempt to homogenize the late 60s with some nonsensical "art-for-art-sake" deifying of musicians is as hilarious as it is nonsensical and historically and contextually incorrect.

The truth is, within less than three years from the release of The White Album, Brian Jones, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Alan Wilson (of Canned Heat) and Jim Morrison would be dead from excess, Brian Wilson was institutionalized, Syd Barrett would be wrecked for life, Peter Green would be debilitated from LSD use, and Eric Clapton and John Lennon would become full-blown heroin addicts. And that doesn't even count the numerous musician who carried their addictions from the 1960s into the 1970s and died later of drug and alcohol issues, like Keith Moon, Elvis, Tim Buckley, Berry Oakley (Allman Brothers), Pigpen McKernan (Grateful Dead), Gram Parsons, Graham Bond, Pete Ham (Badfinger), and Danny Witten (Crazy Horse), whose heroin death was presented starkly by Neil Young in 1972's "The Needle and the Damage Done."

The truth is, nearly every great band of the 1960s including The Beatles, The Who, The Moody Blues, The Doors, Hendrix, Cream, Jefferson Airplane, The Grateful Dead, Velvet Underground, Led Zeppelin, The Byrds, Pink Floyd, Steppenwolf, The Animals, The Rolling Stones, etc., glorified drug use -- count how many times Mick Jagger mentions cocaine or morphine in songs. The Moody Blues made Timothy Leary a patron saint, for Christ's sake.

And I never said drug use was the end all be all in rock compositions of The Beatles or in the making of The White Album, but stop canonizing musicians because historical facts simply show you are spewing bullsh*t.

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

When taking LSD there is something extremely important you have to observe: Never, absolutely never, take it when you are feeling bad in some way. Also don't take it if you are afraid of taking it (a mistake Peter Gabriel made when he tried it). In both cases it will inevitably turn into a horror trip. The drug will extremely magnify your feelings, and combined with the hallucinations you will have it will be disastrous. Also make certain you are in positive surroundings when taking it, like being with friends; don't take it in places you don't like. Only ever take LSD when you are feeling perfectly fine and have a positive attitude to and expectancy of it and are in the right place.

I took LSD about a dozen times and always followed these rules. And it was always a very pleasant (albeit strange) experience.

Oh, and don't try to identify any music you hear while being on the trip; even music you have heard a thousand times will become totally unrecognizable.

Interesting ! Giving a finger could well be part of what would motivate them to include it there... Now I doubt it because they did show interest for collages earlier, Carnival of Light being also exclusively made of them (the crimsonian mood there at 3'29 was a good surprise to me !) and one has to spend quite some time on editing tapes. R9 has more life in it, with bits contrasting with each other.

Apart from chants now and then and at the end, also gun noises, there seems to be little to do with revolution, maybe technological as well as political ?

The blured atmosphere, reverse parts create a feeling of "aspiration" (cf reversed tapes) otherwise it would feel like getting through all kind of moods in a sem-conscious state, with recurring bits... 

At 5'10 there could be a nice intro to some groovy power rock piece LOL...

R9 is like a lone island. Good Night wouldn't have the same flavour if we didn't listen to R9 before it... 

Didn't another member of the Allman Brothers crash a bike and sustain a broken leg after Berry's death? 

Hi,

And, from the looks of it, you are glorifying the events that went on to take many folks in rock music ... and even though they were in "famous" groups, all it really says is that they had the large amounts of money with which to enjoy themselves ... however, I seriously doubt that many of them did it 24/7 ... and that many of them were not clear enough to be able to perform ... I think your view of this is jaded and religiously inclined, as something "bad" ... that killed some folks that we thought were our heroes and we loved the music, and work they did.

I have no heroes (don't need them!) and consequently do not look at many of these folks as "different" than you or I with the exception that they had the ability to score, probably more than we would and the quantities did them in, their emotional inner selves not withstanding.

In many cases, I think it was a study in motion (so to speak) and Jim Morrison is a good example, and I think he took many images he may have had to create his poetry and eventual lyrics for many of the pieces that The Doors did, but I also think that as an artist, he likely thought himself "caught" and stuck. This is always a serious issue for many artists ... they have to move on, not get stuck, and the record business was preventing the changes, for the sake of the money ... which the musicians were offered in lieu of the "art", it is very easy to say.

Many folks died naturally as well ... not just drugs, and pinpointing one factor is not right ... as the variety and quantity of people make for us to be making "examples" of some folks, for something being bad ... and it is not for me to judge their state and their personal doings ... I don't sit here and say that Jerry should have quit, specially as he was diabetic ... but his music, generally speaking, did not suffer, specially when he went on his solo/duet things ... and yet ... yeah, he fell as well, but I'm betting that diabetes had more to do with it than the drug, even though he was well known for it. 

And there is no "bullpucky" in what we say ... I was born into a literary family, and I could easily tell you that Hemingway was a drunk, that Sartre was a stoner (and then some!) and Marquez was too ripped, and many others ... and they lived their life just fine. And their art survived and is well known ... but you choose to find "examples" that prove your point, rather than admit ... heck, in a larger social context, it would not have mattered if they were NOT "famous" ... heck, like saying many in NY, LA, SF, Chicago, even Detroit did not die trying to get "there" as an artist, or musician.

We both see similar things from different sides. I don't see many of these folks as druggies ... I see them as unhappy in some ways ... and the drugs may have magnified that even more ... but saying that it was the main cause of this and that, is basically like saying ... there is no person and no art ... and that is simply not fair or right!

Rather than editing this muddled bunch of errant rambling down to its essence (which could best be exemplified by a turd emoji followed by a series of question marks), I'll just repost this meandering block of senseless mewling for posterity. 

I was not glorifying anything, dolt; as a matter of fact I was demystifying your silly mythologizing of art. Many of the artists you want to canonize were stoned out of their minds in the late 60s -- and Morrison was the bacchanalian exemplar of spouting drug-tinged Huxley while grabbing his crotch.

What you typed does not make sense, is not in context and misses the point altogether.

Brendan Behan, the great Irish playwright, was once commissioned by Guinness to come up with a new slogan for their beer. As part of the payment he was given a couple kegs of Guinness. After several weeks and no reply from Behan, a beer executive visited the flower of Irish poetry. The kegs were empty, and Behan gave the exec the slogan: "Guinness makes you drunk."

Needless to say, Guinness moved on without Behan.

Either that or, like Dr. Wu and his friends and, I confess, like me and mine, the whole thing was appreciated and had its time, but pressing on to heavier matters was always the reason we skipped it.  

Hi,

Again, you are saying that this particular "state" for any person can not be productive, or help create new poems, songs, or art.

I would think that you are more into "songs" and that you do not believe in art ... well, let me tell you, my dolt'ish friend ... ART has a history ... not many songs do, and we try to create a history for them ... just so we can justify our points.

Jim, could be said to be a sort of more modern "Huxley" ... if rock music folks were educated enough to even know what that meant ... but you are all into "songs" that don't mean a whole lot more than clever jingles and silly lyrics and evasive and morose songs about love, sex and rock'n'roll.

Rock music is one of the great arts of the 20th century ... but you'll never wake up to that!

Hi,

Understood ... and I tried to stay on thread by explaining what I saw in it ... which to me, from a literary, or artistic sense, makes a lot more sense than the majority of rock songs and their inane and pathetic lyrics ... and when someone was intelligent enough to create something that really had more to say ... a TRUE and QUITE ALIVE .... "A Day in Life" ... all of a sudden you  get a bunch of top five'rs complaining about what a bunch of trash it all was. As if Andy Warhol was not making fun of something similar ... a tomato soup can ... give it a break ... it was a time for a reflection of what "art" really meant ... and the BEATLES gave us something that to this day we REFUSE to accept, and instead go around talking about grandiose meanings of the songs (hello Ian, Jon, Gen ... etc!!!) and don't even compare to the REALITY of things right in front of our noses ... and in this particular case a small tape recorder being taken for a pooh ride as if it were a doggie, and walking past a stadium, etc, etc, and stopping at the walk/wait sign at the corner and hearing everyone talking ... and whatever else is heard!

It's so simple, that you can do this yourself ... but we sit here and think that it is trash just because we could do it? Doesn't say much for the ability and creativity of the human spirit ... does it?

Take your meds, grandpa, you're sundowning and it's not even noon. What I find uniquely f*cking stupid about your rambles is that I referred to "Huxley" in the first place, but you have the pomposity to believe you alone are educated enough to know what I was referring to, which is hilarious because you can't even type a coherent sentence.

The Anders wrote: Again, I really didn't start this thread to make people get personal on each other...

This has been going on for a decade. Don't take it personally. Pompous windbags need harpooning.

moshkito wrote: It's so simple, that you can do this yourself ... but we sit here and think that it is trash just because we could do it?

My view is that maybe everyone can do it - from a purely technical perspective - but someone has to get the idea first. This is really what matters. It also matters how you do it. To make it artistically interesting, you have to have a clear vision about how you use the sounds. If someone else than John Lennon and Yoko Ono made a sound collage of the same tapes that are used in Revolution 9, it would have been a completely different piece.

OK I'm probably going to regret this but I have to ask - what's a "pooh ride"?

Hi,

You do not, and never have, needed a "clear vision" about how to use the sounds ... and rock music, just like jazz music (hello Miles) ... has shown that it can be done without an "idea" ... but we have this illusory thought that we have to have meaning in order to do this and that ... and it is just an idea that we have created to make ourselves feel better about ourselves, which in the end is an illusion, if you do enough inner spiritual meditation and study things further than just rhetorical words that have no meaning whatsoever, for the most part.

If you look at the tomato soup can (Warhol) ... it was not about the idea ... but he was clever enough to show ... that your reaction to it ... had nothing to do with anything (even art!) ... and he did this in film too ... how about over 20 or 30 (don't remember how long) of 2 people sleeping in the same bed ... not a single touch or movement ... 

I always call it, the late 60's and early 70's the "deconstruction of meaning" ... and how it can sideline and confuse us ... "ideas" and "meanings" is something that we can discuss over tea ... but considering them "real" and important to life ... is insane ... and I like to joke ... how religious of that person to think so ... they have to have a book tell them how to feel! Instead of finding out for yourself!

Revolution #9, is sadly ... usually disliked by the very folks that love "songs" ... and do not spend their time finding music in your everyday world ... all 24 hours of it ... as I like to say ... where is your art? 

Let me say that it is not an idea ... it is a reality!

I don't really buy that premise because basically, if there is no idea or vision, it woud mean that everything improvised is equally great; and clearly it is not. Even Damo Suzuki would have to decide how to improvise; had he chosen to roar like a lion or sing in an operatic way during, say, "Pinch" or "Halleluwah", the overall result would probably have been insufferable.

I get that some artists might deny they have any ideas - and it wouldn't surprise me that some acidheads of the late 60's thought so - but I don't believe them. They may not acknowledge the ideas themselves, or be aware of them, but it doesn't mean they are not there.

Well I know you can't post anything without mentioning your current obsession with people listening to "songs" but I wouldn't describe Revolution #9 as a "song" in the traditional sense. It's not something you can sing or play on the guitar, it's a collection of sounds that needs to be listened to. It's not surprising that fans of Beatle "songs" don't like it. 

The flame war herein is a bit like the original topic. Quasi-experimental and kinda totally random. And bringing lots of bad feeling. A bit more entertaining though. Skipped some content admittedly.

9 was a nearly and intended to be interesting experiment that should've been shelved or edited. Credit to the Beatles for trying new things but not exactly playing to their strengths. And they left off Harrison's numbers for this? As daft as leaving Don't Let Me Down off some versions of Let It Be. 9 has no structure, direction or point. Very anthology worthy. George Martin thought the White Album would've made a great single LP and as usual he was right.

Hi,

With all due respect, you apparently think that "improvisation" has no place in the arts, and I would like to remind you that you are incorrect in that assessment ... the point being that it is "normally" an improvised moment that creates the changes that affect a lot of work.

You can not have an idea during an improvisation, because that says you are paying attention to your MIND, not to the exercise and situation at hand ... you seem to think that "improvisation" is about us all being plain monkeys in the zoo ... and that is not true at all ... and if you ever studied or knew more about film, music and theater, and how it has evolved, the past 70 years has been about how a lot of improvisation brought out so much work and arts ... so you really think that Pollack had to think about how his pee would improve his painting? You gotta be kidding ... it is a spur of the moment thing, and has NOTHING TO DO WITH THINKING at all. So you really think that Miles had an idea of what he was going to do ... he tells you in his special (Hulu I think it was?), that he had no idea and the moment would show itself then!

TAGO MAGO, for many of us, would probably be insufferable, SPECIALLY when Holger's comments were that it was randomly taken from some 20 hours of material ... but then, you are not having fun like FAUST did ... and showed it, too! ... on the special ... when one of them sets about going to play with drumsticks on various cement mixers ... and called it music ... every thing was music to him.

Another example of "pure" improvisation, is to watch Klaus Kinski, in the last 10/15 minutes of AGUIRRE, THE WRATH OF GOD ... it was simply scripted in half a page, and yet, one actor did his thing, and Werner Herzog could not help keep on filming it (looks like he had 2 or 3 cameras going all the time -- though I can not script the turn arounds at all!) ... because it was so good and well done ... Klaus was not, at that time, an actor in the stage and film sense ... he kinda belonged to the free form "LIVING THEATER" and the many other examples floating around Europe at that time (ohhh and NY did a revival of MUSIC MAN again at the

time!!!) that were live theater experimenting as it went along. And even worse, you can watch Godard, Truffaut and a few "new wave" film makers in France that gave you more improvisations that you can imagine ... and Godard was insane ... it wasn't just the actors ... it was also the camera ... the sound ... anything he thought of, and would even speak over with actual meaning or not.

You can NOT script a lot of that stuff ... it's life is very "small" and it only lives in that second and your mind and mine can not "think ahead" as to what is going to happen for you to be able to "formulate" an idea of what you are going to say ... that is truly insane ... and often insensitive, since it will be more likely that the comment won't even fit, and would be out of sorts with the actual goings on ... 

I invite you to go read about "improvisation" as my book as a few years before it is done, but you are completely denying a lot of material at the Fillmore and many other places in jazz and rock, where the idea of the music was "to live" ... and it can not live with "ideas" ... it can only live in the present time and second that things are happening!

Hi,

If you hear the 7 Christmas shows that the Beatles did for their fan club, you will find that there are a lot of individual things and tastes flowing ... and if you listen to all 7 in one night, you can see how their relationship begun falling apart ... first getting weird, and then in the last show, at least one of them does not show up at all.

I think that their "strengths" were now synthesizing to something they each wanted to do on their own ... the LET IT BE bootlegs (there were over 20 of them with various versions and details!) ... showed that they were already on the fritz when it comes to playing together, and helping put together something strong and valuable ... and the WHITE ALBUM, I always thought was an idea, that could have been similar to UMMAGUMMA (much later!) ... which was a sort of one side for each member on the LP.  So, in this sense, GM was right, but he knew that his ability to curtail their individual rights and desires, was going to be a serious issue ... and it only went on to give us one more album which was, likely, their best.

That REVOLUTION #9 has no structure, direction or point ... is an important comment on the state of things ... I keep telling you guys get  portable recorder, go downtown and turn it on as you walk a few blocks and make sure you go past a stadium and a few other public events ... like a small demonstration for the "Society of the Small Angels", complete with posters and what not ... etc, etc, etc ... and when you go home and listen to it ... THERE IS NO STRUCTURE, THERE IS NO DIRECTION AND THERE IS NO POINT ... except one that fits all three ... that we ignored ... YOU ... did go for that walk, and saying that those three elements did not occur to you  when you decided to just turn on the recorder, ends up making things weird, and more difficult to discuss.

I believe it was intentional and that all of them agreed to it ... though you and I probably think that George would never do that, and Paul could not make it sound like Michelle, and Ringo could not figure out how to use his drums ... but John ... he didn't care and did it anyway. And while many dislike it, still, it is one of the best statements about the "art" of the rock music bands, and how so many people make too much hullaballoo about nothing ... of course, including daily events!

BYE,

 I hadn't thought of the recording process. Then they'd try several sequences maybe they'd go out for more takes and edit further, until the result did "flow"...

Moshkito, I think we just have a different concept of what idea and vision actually means. Judging by what you are writing, I think I understand it in a broader sense. For me an idea can be something you come up with spontaneously in a jam session.

I can improvise too. I can make up a lot of stuff on the spot on a piano and then forget all about it after 20 minutes (unless I record it of course), but I still count it as ideas. Deciding to be 'not thinking' while improvising is also an idea in itself.

I see I was not clear. 9 has no beginning, middle, end. Musical form even, or especially in musique concrete is vital. Especially for such a length of time. A few features to stimulate interest are always welcome.

It is as though the above walk was taken and this recording is like a piece of litter stick to one's shoe.

Oh well, it could be worse. It could be 40 minutes worth.

I wonder how people might've reacted had edits been used in between tracks instead, or even as well as the final edit.

Since there's a huge number of beatlemaniacs around, I trust the Wikipedia page to have been cleansed of false infos, so I content myself of infos there on how it was made, and how seriously one should take it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_9" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_9

I think you're too radical here and I'm more with The Anders. The Buddhists know a lot about the problems with thinking, and they also know how hard or even impossible it is to switch it off. Surely one could measure that, technically, the mind is still at work during improvisation. What happens comes from somewhere. The Buddhists teach that you can't switch off the mind, you can just put yourself at a distance and let it do its stuff, without getting entangled with it. But you've got to watch it, otherwise it may take over without your realising it.

Czukay and Schmidt were highly academically trained, Liebezeit was an experienced professional with a wide range of musical experience. Karoli probably not that much (but Czukay was his teacher), and I don't know about Damo, but there was a lot of background to their improvisations and it shows. The Beatles were very intellectually curious, Lennon had *ideas* inspired by the avantgarde stuff he got into for sure (I'd assume the same for Chris Karrer, Falk Rogner, and others in Amon Düül II; Chris had all this interest for Sufi and Eastern culture, these things don't happen in a vacuum).

There is a role of non-thinking in the sense of letting onself go and go with what comes up inside and outside at any moment in present, but thought will happen and cannot be stopped and suppressed, and needs to be used constructively in an integrated way - it needs to be stopped from taking over, but it will still be there, and will play its role.  

I clearly think it does have a structure. Maybe it doesn't have a classic kind of form, but the moment a piece has a beginning and an end, and different things are happening in between which provide changes to the soundscape - which is clearly the case - it fits my definition of a structure. Be it intended or not. Tape loops are faded in and out; they arrive, then disappear for some time, and then come back later. That itself should add structure.

I also think it should be easy to make sense out of it. The soundscape is chaotic, and so you could say if reflects a chaotic world. For a start, there are sounds of bombs and gun shootings, as well as people protesting...

For people like me into avantgarde experimental music, often improvised, it sure makes a lot of sense, despite the lack of beginning, middle, end, form, as you put it. You may not get the interest but that doesn't mean it's impossible to get.

Great minds...or as the Germans say, "two idiots, one thought."

Jean Luc Godard .... everything (art, film, mostly) has a beginning, middle and end ... not necessarily in that order. (paraphrased ... because folks still don't believe that there were arts that were experimenting).

There is a brief bit of conversation after the "Can you take me back" excerpt - it features Alistair Taylor and George Martin discussing a bottle of claret. According to Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_9" rel="nofollow - Revolution 9 - Wikipedia ) this is not part of Revolution #9.

It is said that if you play "number nine" backwards it sounds like "I am the devil, worship me" whereas in fact it sounds like "enin rebmun". 

[/QUOTE]

For people like me into avantgarde experimental music, often improvised, it sure makes a lot of sense, despite the lack of beginning, middle, end, form, as you put it. You may not get the interest but that doesn't mean it's impossible to get.

[/QUOTE]

I enjoy avante garde though composed music beats improv usually. e.g. Crimson do a lot of improv and one of the few prog bands that do. Prog rock is largely thought out structured music. Can recorded great ideas and T Dream (classic era) were more sublime than not.

I got Rev 9. First listen eons ago. It was not difficult to get. It's a tape collage. People are fascinated with it because it's the Beatles. Must confess to being more fascinated with people's fascination with the Beatles than their output. Associations. It's why people tolerate (I think...) Yoko Ono when she does her vocal thing. Were it not for that association where would she be...

My favourite moment of Beatles cleverness is the placement of the sublime A Day In The Life outside the holiday camp of Sgt Pepper. Brought the whimsy to a harsh reality. That was good...