Rating: 
Summary: Flawed methodology linked to silly and offensive analysis.
Review: The author's intention to assess the Beatles' music through their officially released UK recorded output is admirable. But NO researcher worth his or her salt uses second-hand, "unofficial" sources, as does this one; thus the methodology is flawed from the start. His source for the Beatles recorded album output is the Mobile Fidelity stereo set of 1982. Even if those albums represented a faithful transfer from the original master tapes, which they do not, they still are not the original, first-generation Parlophone albums the Beatles released. And as most audiophiles are aware, the MFSL releases have boosts on high and low frequencies that distort the original sound to the extent that the original engineers of the Beatles' sessions are on record as believing the MFSL discs to be faulty. This author should have, at the very least, been making his assessments using the first-generation evidence of original Parlophone vinyl in both stereo and mono formats. He took the easy way out.The Beatles were not actively involved in the mixing in the early stages of their recording career. But when they became involved, they were actively involved in mixing the MONO versions of these discs, NOT the stereo versions. The MFSL set contains only the stereo mixes. As any serious Beatles fan knows, the Beatles considered the MONO MIXES -- especially of albums like "Revolver" and "Sgt. Pepper's" -- to be the definitive mixes. Yet throughout this book we keep reading about guitars in the left speaker; or effects in the right speaker. All this is nonsense, as the Beatles were not the "authors" of those effects. The stereo albums were "afterthoughts" mixed without the Beatles by George Martin and Geoff Emerick and others. This is especially crucial in the assessment of the recorded effects in "Pepper's." The Beatles and their producer/engineers are on record as calling the MONO MIX of "Sgt. Pepper's" the REAL "Sgt. Pepper's." The differences in mixes from mono to stereo are significant enough throughout the Beatles career -- certainly as regards the musics effects on the listener, and as regards the artists' OWN intentions -- that any book that ignores the mono mix/stereo mix issue cannot be taken seriously. As for the singles, which the author discusses in their stereo mixes: all of the Beatles U.K. singles were released IN MONO until "Ballad of John and Yoko." The analysis of lyrics reads as a parody of the utterly absurd in music analysis, until you realize that REALLY, the poor man IS serious. "Looking through a Glass Onion," indeed. One can only imagine Lennon's derisive laughter. Where the book actually veers from silly to deeply offensive is in the contentions the author makes about George Harrison who, in the author's estimation, was essentially peripheral to the Beatles accomplishments. At every opportunity the author dismisses and belittles Harrison to the point where one wonders if personal animus has overwhelmed critical detachment. Throughout the book Harrison is carried by the other band members. Or his solos are derivitive. Or his singing is out-of-tune and juvenile. The function of his songwriting, the author contends, is to highlight the brilliance of Lennon and McCartney by comparison. Would anyone, he muses caustically, even listen to George Harrison's songs if they WERE NOT on Beatles albums? Of Harrison's groudbreaking and vastly influential use of the sitar on "Norwegian Wood," the author can only comment that the sitar sounds better when used by the Stones in 1966. End of comment. Literally. Of "Something," the author informs us that McCartney's bass lines essentially STEAL THE RECORDING from Harrison. I am not sure that "Something" is the Beatles second-most covered song because of Paul's basslines, however musically admirable. In short, at every turn this author, who claims the Beatles were greater than the sum of the four parts which made up the group, denigrates in every way possible one of the four parts. Did George Harrison really have NOTHING to do with the Beatles sound, innovations and successes? On this score alone the book is not to be taken seriously by anyone who IS serious about the Beatles. But alas, it is one of several critical flaws that render this book close to useless. Save your money and buy the records instead. Let the music speak for itself!
Rating: 
Summary: A Classic Analysis of the Beatle Recordings
Review: This book is a masterpiece. I read it when it first came out and just yesterday began re-reading it. (I'm planning to buy a copy for a friend of mine who's a jazz fan, but knows little about rock and roll.) Twelve years later, it still provides me with fresh insight that brings me closer to the essence of songs I've listened to and played most of my life. People who are looking for a "Rolling Stones" interview or a "behind the scenes expose'" have dozen of other books to choose from. This text does not speculate on Paul's motivation or synthesize public relations releases and old interviews. Instead, it is a book about music written by a man who has passion for and knowledge of music and a gift for explaining. Essential reading for anyone who has lost themselves in a Beatle tune. Thank you, Mr. Riley.
Rating:
Summary: Tell Me Why, Indeed!
Review: This book is brilliant, if not quite what I expected when I picked it up. I expected, I suppose, something much closer to "A Hard Day's Write": Stories behind the songs, tales of recording and inspiration. What I got was far better; a song-by-song, album-by-album, single-by-single, MUSICAL analysis of the Beatle's catalogue.
I emphasize the word musical because this book is heaped with music theory. The effects of unresolved sixths, diminished ninths, dominant and subdominant chords and progressions... if you're not familiar with any term I just mentioned you might be getting in over your head. But, to his credit, Riley sticks to the specifics of each song that his meaning becomes clear as soon as you listen to what he's writing about, regardless of how much music theory you know.
Riley's analysis of "Revolver" is spectacular, and I appreciate his nerve to finally come out and say that "Sgt. Pepper's" ISN'T the Beatles' best album (it's about time that myth was debunked). His attention to song progression is something I find extremely worthwhile, and his interpretation of the meaning behind the way each song is sung (which goes far beyond "to make it sound good" and into the realm of psychiatric analysis at times) and the way each album is ordered is much appreciated. "Tell Me Why" is a look at exactly what the Beatles did to music, the area of culture where they caused the most change. With the heaps of other tomes that focus on their effect on the world of celebrity and on their personal life, it's a refreshing and exhillerating read,
Rating:
Summary: Poor Research.
Review: This is a poorly researched book. Here's an example - the author seems to be under the impression that George Harrison played the (excellent) guitar solos on 'Taxman' and 'Good Morning Good Morning', unfortunately in both cases it was Paul. This is such a well known fact I can't believe he got it wrong. If you want a book like this going through all the songs then pick up Ian McDonald's superb 'Revolution In The Head'.
Rating:
Summary: Great book
Review: This is a very well written book which I really enjoyed reading. I hope that the author will now update his book with a review of the Beatles' anthology albums which bring new insights into their music. This is a must have book for any person who likes the music of the Beatles.
Rating:
Summary: A whole lot of nothing
Review: This is by far the worst book on The Beatles I have ever read. Author Tim Riley reads way too deep into these songs.
It's obvious about 100 pages in that he dislikes George Harrison and everything Harrison does. He accuses George's "Blue Jay Way," by saying that "In three minutes and fifty seconds, it goes nowhere." He also finds some little fault in all of George's music, even the sitar in "Norwegian Wood." During the analysis of "Something" he turns the spotlight to Paul McCartney and his basslines, rather than Harrison's beautiful lyrics.
Riley also makes it as obvious as you can get that his favorite Beatles track is "She Said She Said" without actually coming out and saying it. He makes references to it during dozens of other songs and spends three pages talking about it.
He also makes it clear that he thinks "Sgt Pepper" is more popular than it deservs to be and that "Revolver" is really The Beatles' masterpiece, although most Beatle fans would probably disagree.
He'll easily spend two or three pages talking about one song, and how he thinks the drum pattern or bassline is significant in some way, or something like that. I skimmed through a lot of it. He also places the emphasis on the strange and unpopular songs. He spends two pages on "She Said She Said," but literally, only three average-sized sentences on "Hello Goodbye." Overall, this is an extremely boring and tedious book.
Rating: 
Summary: the first of many
Review: this was the first readable analysis of the beatles music which deserves to be updated. this is a crowded field these days but reilly was the first and for that he should recieve congratulations.heisnt afraid to take the beatles to task for any misteps they might have taken along the way and his comments on beatle literature are insightful and right on the mark.
Rating:
Summary: A pretty good book on the Beatles
Review: Though he does occasionally adopt a snippy tone that's off-putting, this is actually a good book. Riley basically wanted to write a book that placed an emphasis on musical analysis, often on a technical level. That's what he tries for, and for the most part, he delivers. It can be very dry if you're musically iliterate, but otherwise, it's a refreshing change of pace from other Beatles books. In response to some of the inconsistent criticism below (one says there's too much analysis in the meaning of the songs, another says there isn't any outside of the instrumentation), there is a good dose of analysis that isn't strictly on a technical level, but I would hardly call it laughable; it certainly isn't as outrageous as the "Paul Is Dead" analysis that's still floating around, even though it's no longer taken seriously. I don't agree with some of it, but while many rock critics agree on what's a masterpiece, they often don't agree on what the same masterpiece may mean. Take Riley's opinion on what a song may mean as an honest opinion, not as a definitive statement. Also, the audiophile here has some good comments. Most of you out there may not understand what he's talking about, but his assessment of the MFSL sources Riley listened to are accurate. HOWEVER, Riley does acknowledge that a variety of mixes exist (he gets some of the details wrong, but he gets the big picture right), and in the intro the implied preference to the stereo mixes is that it makes it easier to point out or talk about certain elements of the song because of the added instrumental separation. It would be great to go over the different mixes of a song and the impact it has on that recording, but that's something that would have to come from a record collector or a diehard audiophile as well as someone with an educational background in music. And to the reviewer from California, first, a lot has changed in the last 30 years. Most rock fans would call Revolver the best album, not Sgt. Pepper, and the fact that Revolver has topped so many "100 Greatest Albums" fans' and critics' polls in the past year is solid proof of that. Second, "Blue Jay Way" is rarely considered a great example of Harrison's work, though it has its fans. Third, Riley is too harsh on Harrison in general, but some remarks are pretty good observations. As great as "Norwegian Wood" is, strictly on a technical level, the sitar playing is not 'good.' Harrison and Ravi Shankar have both stated this is many interviews. Harrison wasn't very familiar with the instrument yet (compare his playing on "Norwegian Wood" with the expert playing on "Inner Light," which isn't a better song but has better playing), but it was still used for the exotic texture it brings to the recording. Harrison's other accomplishments are still praised, like the 12-string on A Hard Day's Night and his massive growth as a songwriter. Sometimes too critical, but he often does give Harrison his due. To the earlier reviewer, he does find flaws in later work like the White Album and Sgt. Pepper, but it's hardly a dismissal; Riley still thinks they're good, if flawed, works. The praise heavily outweighs the negative comments. I agree that this isn't worth buying if you have the first edition. The second just adds another chapter that isn't worth reading. As for the analysis of the solo recordings, I agree he's too harsh on George's solo career. However, he doesn't dismiss all of Paul's work. His assessment of Paul's career (that it was very inconsistent and the best stuff often came on singles, not albums), is very consistent with most (except for McCartney fans, who are more forgiving). Even his argument that "Band on the Run" and "Tug of War," Macca's best post-Beatles albums, were overrated is a reflection of the backlash both albums have had over the years. I think "Band on the Run" is a little better than he gives it credit being, but he still makes a lot of valid points. Overall, this book is still worth reading. It's not nearly as good as Peter Guralnick's Elvis books or Greil Marcus's "Mystery Train," and a real, definitive critical history of the Beatles is still missing, but in the meantime, this book makes for a good, if flawed read.
Rating: 
Summary: don't buy if you already have the 1st ed.
Review: tim riley does a great job exploring the beatles music, in the context in which it was created. he doesn't read too much into the songs, but still evaluates them in the atmosphere they were created, explaining some of the bases, motifs and nuances. in his revised edition, promised to be fully updated in light of the new releases, Mr. riley adds little if anything. the additional hours of material do not seem to have any significant influence on his original evaluations. however, he does spend tremendous amounts of time, basically putting down the beatles (or EMI (?)) for the anthology books, the series, and the music. this edition seems to have a mean streak about it, refusing to acknowledge paul solo career was anything other than forgettable fluff, ringo is simply a has-been, and george is a meandering groundless flake. john he is willing to give some credit to for his solo work. the book is interesting and insightful, but mr. rilely, for the most part, writes off everything done by the beatles except for the early albums up to revolver, and couple later singles. everything else he seems to criticize or write off altogether.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting analyses and interpretations
Review: Tim Riley goes through all the Beatles's songs and points out interesting technical, biographical, and musical facts. It's a hands on book: you get the most out of it if you listen as you read. Many things that are in the songs that I never thought about or heard before come to life. I don't always find myself in agreement with Riley, but his point of view is worthing hearing by any Beatles fan. Riley also considers the Fab Four in their post-Beatles years and an epilogue discusses the Anthology, the new version of Yellow Submarine, etc. Quite a pleasure.
|
