Customer Reviews

Tell Me Why: The Beatles: Album By Album, Song By Song, The Sixties And After

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

I can't speak to the accuracy of every detail in this book, but I found the commentary and analysis to be very informative and entertaining. Riley, unlike many authors who cover subjects of pop culture, isn't afraid to approach the music with a loving but critical eye. I really don't need to read another author fawning unconditionally over The Beatles. Riley doesn't present his interpretations as fact, and seems to respect his readers enough to give them the credit to know that these are his opinions. Some of his writing on the music is a bit technical, but that's hardly the focus of the book, and would certainly be useful to a musician or someone fluent in music theory. Likewise, his writing is sometimes a bit lofty and convoluted- this often reads as if it were an academic work. But it's far from unreadable, and offers an all-encompassing, song by song, sometimes lyric by lyric, analysis of The Beatles (plus a few of their solo works). The music obviously speaks for itself, but this is a fine supplement to help enhance our understanding of it. If nothing else, this is just the well-written opinions of another fan.

Riley's survey of the Beatles albums and singles is one of the most enlightening books on the subject. As a survey of The Beatles' music, the book cannot be faulted for failing to dig into the musician's personal lives. Some critics of the book complain of the technical language, but unlike the journalist who praised the "aeolian cadences" in "Not A Second Time," Riley is aware that The Beatles were untutored, basically intuitive musicians. His language is that of a musically educated person, not that of a pompous intellectual critic (of music or books), and Riley clearly worked hard to keep the analysis from flying over the heads of his anticipated readership, though perhaps he shouldn't have bothered. A reader may disagree with Riley's judgments about some songs and albums, but the author never fails to justify his opinions, and usually he offers some new insight into these now-venerable recordings. Best of all, Riley doesn't buy into the popular myths about the more famous songs and albums, and he does approach each new topic as freshly as possible. This book and Mark Lewisohn's "Beatles Recording Sessions" are two of the finest volumes on Beatles music ever written.

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,

I did not like the Beatles when I first heard them in high school, but by the time Sgt. Pepper came out, I had matured enough to discover that they were a very special phenomenon. Now there are so many books about them that it is hard to know what to read to get the best sense of their contribution to music. I recommend Tim Riley's book for that purpose. The best thing about this book is that it will increase your sensitivity to the Beatles creative art as you listen to their songs. If you pay attention, you will be able to hear the way Paul brings the bass in to support the lead guitar or to counter the drums. You can hear how Ringo changes the beat in accord with what the song is trying to convey, and you have a better sense of how the words and music work together.

As other reviewers have noted, it does require some knowledge of music, notably chord theory, to understand some of the details, I do not think it is entirely necessary. I know just enough about chords to understand major and minor changes and what they mean to the music, but I get lost when he goes into descriptions of the tonic and dominant. You will also need to know a lot about percussion, because he refers not generally to Ringo's drumming, but to what he is using (high hats, tom-toms, snare, etc.). It is clear from this book that Ringo contributed more to the group than he is usually credited with doing. He is the one, according to Riley, who was able to subdue his ego and try to keep everything together with his beat and ability to complement everyone else.

Riley likes John Lennon the best and tends to favor whatever Lennon did, albeit not uncritically. He gives Paul a rougher time, putting down any song that lacks an edge or an angle as another "silly love song" unless it rises to the level of a standard such as "Yesterday." Unlike other reviewers, I did not find his analysis of George Harrison's contribution to be all that insulting, but I do think he understated Harrison's contributions as a forward looking instrumentalist. Riley has a low opinion of the vocal abilities of both Starr and Harrison, but it is true that both (and a lot of other singers) suffer in comparison to both Lennon and McCartney, whose vocalizing was overshadowed by their composing talent.

You also need to understand that he is writing his opinions of the meanings of the lyrics and the reasons the Beatles did certain things musically. His bias shows clearly. He admires the group and his disappoint over some of their less than stellar creations is palpable. It is a very high standard that they set for themselves and, although Riley acknowledges the timeless nature of their best work, he is scathing in his criticism of their more mediocre efforts. Bruce Greenfield's review is correct in saying that Riley pontificates a bit too much. I also found it irritating that he claims to know exactly what the lads were trying to do with each note and word. Again, these are only Riley's opinions. Another problem I had with that is that he goes into great detail on the songs he likes and admires, but if a song does not measure up to that, he will give it a sentence or two, dismissively.

I found value in the book from his ability to explain some of the innovations the Beatles developed from the very beginning of their career. A few of these are almost common knowledge to rock fans, such as the use of feedback at the start of "I Feel Fine" to George Harrison's introduction of the sitahr. There are some very good insights that never occurred to me, though. Riley points out that the lyrics to "She Loves You" break new ground in that although it is sung in the first person, the singer is speaking to a friend rather than to the listener. Their music conveys a sense of excitement and joy in carrying this good news. Another example is from McCartney's bridge in "Day in the Life," which is marked by a quicker sharper beat from Ringo. Riley notes that this beat evokes the "corporate precision" of every day life, but notes that while this may seem like waking from Lennon's nightmare verses, it becomes hard to tell who is singing about the real nightmare.

You really have to listen to the song while reading the book and even then, it is often hard to hear what Riley is writing about. He devotes a lot of words to explaining how different sounds come from the right, left or center in stereo, but I found it hard to detect these even after numerous playing. Perhaps, as others have pointed out, it is very hard to hear without the 1982 masters.

Riley uses the albums that were originally issued on Parlophone and neither the US Capitol releases (which were a greedy manipulation of the buying public while sacrificing the art of the Beatles created in sequencing the songs) nor CDs. Younger readers will have difficulty relating to his idea of endings and beginnings of vinyl sides, which CDs have rendered meaningless.

In the second edition, Riley gives a bow to Mark Lewisohn's book "The Beatles Recording Sessions," which is a description based on Lewisohn's hearing of all of the Beatle's master tapes. This book has its own insights and I would recommend it as a less harsh book than this one. Riley did not have the use of Lewisohn's book in writing "Tell Me Why," and it is clear that he would have benefited from it. The two authors disagree on a number of points so it would is useful to have the balance of their opposing views.

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.

I read "Tell Me Why" years ago, and I still pick it up from time to time because it is an insightful, but not pedantic review of The Beatles' music, not their cultural or sociological significance, not their dirty laundry, not their relationship with each other and with the social discontent of the 1960s, etc. So much has been written about The Beatles, as phenomena, as cultural icons and almost everything imaginable, except there is a surprising scarcity of good criticism of their music, which after all of these years, has withstood the test of time. There is Wilfred Mellers' book "Twilight of the Gods," but that is written from the perspective of a professor of classical music, and the results are amusing if not unintelligible. Riley is spot on with his insights into their music, and that is the only aspect of The Beatles that is meaningful to me.

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!

I loved this book. I don't know why so many people seemed to have a problem with it. Tim Riley is a knowledgable music critic,schooled in musical theory and an expert on classical music. He also absolutely adores the Beatles' music. With very few exceptions,he loves everything they ever did and tells,in great detail exactly what it was musically,that made them so special. Each and every song from Love Me Do to Let it Be,just like the title says,album by album, song by song. Actually,my love of the Beatles' music is a viceral thing. From the moment I first heard the opening chords of I Want to Hold Your Hand,this music seemed to enter my blood stream. I still get the same feeling whenever I listen to certain favorite songs,or hear their voices in harmony. But I never understood it in musical theory terms. The chord progressions, changes from major to minor chords in the same song, this had never been done before in pop music, only classical,until the Beatles. This is what excited everybody about their music but only other musicians can describe it accurately. Us lay people just think, "that song makes me cry" or "wow, I've never heard anything like this before". Riley dissects each song,practically note by note,every guitar lick,bass line, and drum fill. He particularly loves Rubber Soul and Revolver sighting them as two of the greatest albums of all time. He also loves Please Please Me, With the Beatles, and A Hard Day's Night. So he doesn't just give their later music a lot of acclaim,which would have been annoying. He feels that all of these albums were important, along with Abbey Road and the White Album. He describes them in a way that makes you think of them as little works of art. Each one pivotal and ground breaking in their own unique way. He also describes why each Beatle was wonderful and essential to the greatness of each song and album. He never lets you forget that they were an ensemble. He worships John and Paul's singing, calling McCartney's voice, "peerless". He details their songwriting and George's. He talks about how BOTH Lennon and McCartney were melodists, not only McCartney. He points out Paul's melodic,inventive bass lines,George and John's brilliant guitar work (not just George's like other books have). And he loves Ringo,calling his drumming underrated, because it was. He goes into so much detail about Ringo's drumming that it made me sit up and take notice of it also. Listen to 'Rain' and 'Ticket to Ride' and Ringo's live drumming, which he also loves. He dissects the Live at the BBC cds, and after reading that long section,I've begun to listen to all the things he hears on them. I see what a great live band they were. This book made me listen to their music from a fresh perspective, and I realize that I never really HEARD their music until now. There is so much going on, on their records. So much to listen to. While reading this book you need to have a cd player handy and a good pair of head phones with a bass booster. You need to be able to hear what he's talking about. In this new edition there is a section added which details the 3 Antology CDs, Live at the BBC,and others that have been released since the first edition of this book came out, in 1988.There is also a section on the solo records. You don't have to be a musician to enjoy this book either. You just have to be a fan of Beatle music.

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.

Riley has given us a great gift - a way to listen to these familiar recordings with fresh ears. He sticks to the music itself (a real blessing) and opens up new points of insight and discussion about the Beatles as musicians (not pop icons or celebrities). As an example he convincingly makes the case that the often over-looked Ringo Starr is in fact one of the most musical drummers of the rock era. The technical side of the discussions are minimized although welcome to those with a little musical knowledge. You will not find a more thoughtful, intelligent and entertaining work about the Beatles' music.