The Beatles. Lyrics. 8 de setembro de Page 2. 1. Help! 2. 1 Help! (Lennon/ McCartney). Help, I need somebody,. Help, not just anybody,. Help, you know I. It is not a diet book but Healthy Weight Loss – Without Dieting. Following the In this effective Healthiest Way of E Complet Lyrics of all Songs - THE BEATLES. This is a collection of Beatles' tabs and chords that I found on the net. file (in PDF or Microsoft Word format) on my web site ruthenpress.info Here.

Author:ROXANNE VIGILO
Language:English, Spanish, Japanese
Country:Oman
Genre:Academic & Education
Pages:476
Published (Last):04.08.2016
ISBN:728-1-42130-726-6
Distribution:Free* [*Register to download]
Uploaded by: MARISSA

46251 downloads 172275 Views 27.77MB PDF Size Report


Beatles Lyrics Pdf

Identifying and analyzing the poetic qualities of The. Beatles' lyrics from By Stephanie Murphy. Mentor: Jim Baird. Advisor: Susan Eve. PDF - The Beatles Lyrics. The first-ever collection of the original handwritten Beatles' lyrics. Never before has anyone attempted to track down and publish the . The Beatles lyrics - song lyrics sorted by album, including "Let It Be", " Yesterday", "Hey Jude".

The power of rock and roll is a constantly amazing process. Although it is Bob Dylan who is the single most important figure in rock and roll; and although it is the Rolling Stones who are the embodiment of a rock and roll band; it is nonetheless Our Boys. The Beatles, who are the perfect product and result of everything that rock and roll means and encompasses. Never has this been so plainly evident as on their new two-album set. Read more. The Beatles currently have the distinction as being the highest certified band in Gold and Platinum Award history, with million certifications across their discography.

You just don't usually find relationships at this stage and presented at this level of complexity and ambiguity in love songs, although they are the marrow of real life.

This song also checks in on a quiet tally I've been keeping in my head for more than a half a century: can a love song be as socially significant as a song aimed at some social injustice? So The Beatles in terms of socially significant love songs got there first, and these two songs are all the evidence one needs that not all love songs are silly, or even just medium wise.

Sheffield also offers more testimony on behalf of George Martin's deft production skills, remarking on the perfect mix of McCartney's harmony on this track, so it provides resonance to Lennon's introspection without intruding on it.

And I'll be back sooner or later with another review. This review is about Sheffield's chapter actually two chapters devoted to Rubber Soul. There's no intrinsic connection between Rubber Soul and July 4, American Independence Day, but I just read the two chapters, and they're too good not to talk about immediately, whatever the date. Though, come to think of it, there is a slight connection, since Sheffield makes the point that he can't decide which of the two versions of the album, the British or the American, he loves most, because they're both so good.

This is just a minor example of why these chapters are such memorable discussions of Sheffield's favorite album. There's long been a tie in my head between Rubber Soul and Sgt.

Pepper not quite Revolver, for reasons I'll get into in some subsequent review , but Rubber Soul has my heart and soul, and Sgt. Pepper my head, and I guess two out of three ain't bad. My essay "Sgt.

Complet Lyrics of all Songs - THE BEATLES

Pepper, and how I didn't like it all that much the first time I heard it -- I'll return to that in a later review. Dylan inspired The Beatles, but I'd say Rubber Soul and its superb variety of meditations on passion has as much or more in common with Cole Porter.

I've always thought that the greatest lyricists of the 20th century were equally Cole Porter, Lennon-McCartney, and Dylan -- and Rubber Soul, the album and Sheffield's chapters, in effect testifies why and why Lennon- McCartney are in retrospect the bridge. It may well be that Rubber Soul is the greatest album not only by The Beatles, but by anyone, because that mix of rock and folk, however brilliantly it might work for social commentary, finds its apotheosis in adventures of the human heart.

Covers Rob Sheffield sticks in an "Instrumental Break" of a chapter about a third-way through his exceptional Dreaming The Beatles, about covers of Beatles songs and other recordings that for one reason or another bear strong influences of Beatles music. Confession: I don't like covers. I can't think of even a single example in which I liked a cover of a recording better than an original that I loved or even liked a lot.

Ok, I guess one example -- Carl Carlton's version of "Everlasting Love" was better than Robert Knight's original, but that's just one lone example. This is what I've called the "first love syndrome" at work -- when there is more than one version of a creative work afoot, we like best what we came to love first.

If you think this is too obvious to call a syndrome, consider this: I once ran into someone at a science fiction convention who told me his favorite Star Trek narrative on screen was the first Star Trek movie, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, so generally disliked that it's been called Star Trek: The Motion Sickness.

I asked this guy if he had seen them. He said yes, but he didn't think that either measured up to the movie. He then offered that his first Star Trek experience had been that first motion picture. D the first love syndrome. So, though I guess it would be instructive to speak to someone who heard a cover of a Beatles recording prior to The Beatles recording, for me the question is always how much did the cover ruin an original that I loved. But Beatles influences on other artists are a lot different than covers, and Sheffield's mention of Dylan's "I Want You" and "Just Like A Woman" as influenced by Rubber Soul is one of the delights of this chapter and the book as a whole.

I also watch Prince's beyond breathtaking guitar work on "As My Guitar Gently Weeps" in the Hall of Fame George tribute concert at least once a month on YouTube -- it's far and away the best guitar solo I've ever seen and heard -- and I was glad to see Sheffield discuss that, too. Actual collaboration is another facet of this chapter, and I always found Lennon's work with David Bowie so noteworthy that I actually wrote a whole novelette in which that figures -- "Ian, Isaac, and John" a.

And I'll be back with more pretty soon. The story that it isn't is better than well known: John's son Julian came home with a picture of Lucy, a girl at school, with a sky and diamonds, and told his father that he had drawn a picture of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. Or something like that. And then there's the story, not quite as well known, about Peter Yarrow and his "Puff the Magic Dragon" actually based on a poem by Leonard Lipton.

Yarrow and Lipton have always insisted the lyric was as much about pot as the "Star Spangled Banner" and its bombs bursting in air was about some psychedelic drug around at the time of our War of Even though it seemed obvious to just about everyone else that "puff" and "paper" and "dragon" aka "draggin'" were about grass. I had already encountered I. Richards -- a British literary critic, not a rock star -- years before.

Nearly a century ago, Richards e. Among the most important red flags that grew out of Richards' work was what Wimsatt and Beardsley later termed the "intentional fallacy" -- it doesn't matter what the creator of the work may have intended, what counts is what the reader objectively gets from the work. From that, it's a relatively small move to the position that it doesn't matter what the creator of the work says the work is about -- or, to use a modern parlance, that the creator of a work is an unreliable guide to what the work may be about.

When I first encountered Richards in the s, I could immediately see his injunctions could apply to creative work in any medium -- The Beatles and Peter, Paul, and Mary lyrics, and, much later, to the ending of The Sopranos see Levinson, "The Sopranos and the Closure Junkies," b, for more.

Other strong parts of this chapter were the competition between The Beatles and Dylan, and McCartney's confidence that The Beatles had surpassed Dylan's understanding of them by the time they were doing Revolver the subject of the next chapter.

You might also like: BANGLA SONG LYRICS PDF

It's of course possible that Sheffield might say that this wasn't one of the strongest parts of this chapter -- but I'll place my confidence in Richards. And I'll be back with more soon -- maybe tomorrow, though you never know. Underrated Revolver Rob Sheffield's chapter on Revolver is one the best, perhaps the best, chapter I've read so far in his stellar Dreaming The Beatles.

It's chock full of Sheffield's handy use of lines from Beatles songs to make his points, and lots more, but what rings out for me is its convincing argument that Revolver may be the greatest Beatles' album.

I said in a review of an earlier chapter that Rubber Soul and Sgt. Pepper have long been tied for me as The Beatles best album, with Revolver a tad below.

Sheffield has shown why I was wrong: I was basing my assessment on the American version of the album -- "butchered" as Sheffield aptly puts it -- because it omitted three songs that were on the British version. As just one example, I love the national health line in "Dr. Robert," and its rhyme with see yourself, and that's just one of many lines in all three songs, which also have melodies and harmonies and arrangements that are so memorable they've been part of my DNA since I first heard and loved them in the s.

So, yeah, I was lazy, I should have done a modicum of research before I downgraded Revolver, but like the Jerry Orbach character in Dirty Dancing, I admit it when I wrong, or whatever exactly it was that he said.

So Sheffield's book, in addition to its other delights and benefits, has now forever educated me and changed decades of impressions in my head. I've also mentioned in a previous review that I'm crazy about "Rain". I feel much the same about "Paperback Writer," which also comes from this same period of Beatles extraordinary work.

Pepper Sgt. First, I already mentioned in an earlier review that I wasn't thrilled with Sgt. Pepper the first time I heard it -- I thought it went off the deep end and was no Rubber Soul or Revolver -- but soon came to change my mind, and love it as indeed no Rubber Soulor Revolver, but in some ways even better. I wrote a little essay about this in the s entitled "Sgt.

Pepper and the Presumption of Genius," the gist of which is when you encounter something that you don't especially like by geniuses whose earlier work you love, you should give the new work the presumption of genius and in the case of music listen to it some more, and maybe you'll discover that you were wrong the first and second or however many times. That essay was published in my Electronic Chronicles in -- I keep saying I'll put up a Kindle edition in the next few months -- I think that's a more likely true statement than it was before.

Second, Sheffield acknowledges that the reason he does not hold Pepper in quite the same high regard as he does Rubber Soul and Revolver is because he heard the album for x number of years in "watered-down" stereo, not the mono in which it was originally released, and in which I of course first heard it when it was released in June In fact, I never much cared for stereo, one reason why Ed Fox and I released our Twice Upon a Rhyme in in mono the other reason is that we got all of our studio time free, but it wasn't that much time, and we only had enough time for a mono mix.

But the circumstances under which a creative work was first heard, and how those circumstances influence and even determine the listener's perception, is a crucial, often overlooked factor in popular culture. In my previous review, I indicated how my hearing Revolver in its American release, with three great songs removed, short- changed my appreciation of the album.

And the "first-love syndrome" I also discussed in a previous review also figures into this process. I'll conclude this reflection with a rare factual disagreement I have with Sheffield, who, contrasting Oscar Wilde and Lenny Bruce as Beatles inspirations or templates, says that unlike Wilde, Lenny Bruce produced no memorable lines that we still quote.

As evidence to the contrary, I'd offer Lenny Bruce's observation that "If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses". Ok, back to life and music and I'll be back soon with another review. Beatles vs. Stones Rob Sheffield's stand-out chapter on The Beatles vs the Stones in his Dreaming The Beatles is another example of the many candidates for flat-out best chapter in this great book, in this case because Sheffield demonstrates a mastery in discussing the Stones equal to what he does about The Beatles throughout his book.

Just to be clear, I don't agree with every point Sheffield makes or even explores in this book, but I agree with a lot more than I usually do in any book about anything.

But to give you an example of one point in which I strongly disagree, Sheffield says in the chapter before the Stones that Magical Mystery Tour is a terrible album.

I agree it's not one of their finest, but it's much closer to superb than it is to worthless. I'm not even sure I hold the Rolling Stones in as high esteem as does Sheffield. I usually think they're the second best rock group of all-time, but the Beach Boys for very different reasons aren't far behind. But I agree completely that The Beatles are better. And I agree with and very much like Sheffield's analysis of the Stones vis-a-vis The Beatles, and how the Stones finally broke free of and beyond the competition with The Beatles with their "Jumpin Jack Flash".

I remember the time I first heard that masterpiece on the radio, and I thought immediately that the Stones had done something, at very least and at last, very different from what The Beatles had ever done. So the Stones deserve credit, for, if nothing else, breaking free of the sway of The Beatles, which every band, especially those in England, had to be in the grip of, in one way or another, in those days and even now. But one point I would also make about the Stones, which Sheffield didn't at least, not yet , is that the Stones were able to survive the death of Brian Jones and be vibrant and path-breaking as a band which The Beatles could not in the case of John Lennon.

And that's not only because The Beatles had already split apart a decade before Lennon's murder, but because he was essential to The Beatles in a way that Jones never was to the Stones. An equivalent blow to the Stones would have been the death of Mick Jagger, or perhaps Keith Richards. Which means that part of how we now evaluate the Stones is due to their continuing on to this very day as a band.

In living on into the 21st-century -- performing, writing, recording -- the Stones thus took their considerable accomplishments in the s and 70s to another whole, unique level. But Sheffield's still right that The Beatles were and are and always will be better. It's been more than three weeks since my last review.

I've been writing all kinds of things, but I've finished a few now don't worry, I'll let you know when they're published , and I wanted to reward myself by getting back into Sheffield's book. I'd intended to read a big chunk, but the first new chapter I encountered was so The whole book is newsworthy, meaning, I'm learning things about The Beatles and related groups in just about every chapter.

But the chapter "Helter Skelter" taught me something big and newsworthy that goes well beyond The Beatles, and I truly didn't know before.

The Beatles

Sheffield says if you ask people on street, 99 will tell you that Charles Manson not only incited but actually committed the infamous Tate-La Bianca murders. I'd be one of those 99 -- or would have been, until I read this chapter, in which Sheffield explains that Manson was not even physically in the room in which the murders occurred. He indeed was convicted of First Degree Murder, hence the assumption that he actually, physically did the murders -- but this is as factually incorrect as the notion that somehow The Beatles' "Helter Skelter" was responsible for the murders, because it seized and somehow commanded Manson's sick mind, an idiocy which Sheffield also intelligently disposes of.

I at least never believed for a moment that second idea -- you cannot, on general principle, blame what a psycho might be inspired to do on a popular culture inspiration. The blame resides with the human monster, not the works he may have read, heard, or seen. Sheffield argues that the combination of the Manson murders Beatles and Altamont murders Stones ended the s.

They certainly put a serious dent in that age. But I've always argued, to the contrary, and contra Don MacLean, that ultimately the 60s never died.

I first made this point in published form in my little essay, "Benny Goodman and the Endless Sixties," in , republished in Electronic Chronicles in The forces of creativity and freedom unleashed in the s have taken many a beating in the ensuing years and decades, including most recently with the election and presidency of Donald Trump. But the sixties live on, nonetheless. I just heard "Dr. Yesterday I heard "I'll Follow the Sun".

And I just read an eye- opening chapter in Sheffield's wonderful book. More soon. Lots of reasons, including end of summer, but the most significant is I want this wonderful book to last as long as possible -- or reading the book, to be more precise. With The Beatles Channel on Sirius XM, that I listen to daily, every time I'm alone in the car, I'm almost believing that The Beatles are still with is -- as indeed they are, or at least their timeless music.

We've wanted to do this for years, but being inveterate cheapskates held us back. We didn't way to pay enough for decent seats. But we finally did and I'll be back here with a full review later this week. Thanks : So I decided to read the next chapter in Sheffield's book, and, lo and behold, it's about Paul. Not only that, it's a George vs. Paul chapter -- "Something" vs. Sheffield acknowledges that there are worse songs lurking on some of the solo albums, but scores "My Love" because it got so much trumpeted attention.

So here I am defending Paul again like he needs my or anyone's defense , like I did all those years ago in my first published article, "A Vote McCartney," that appeared in The Village Voice in after I'd sent in a letter responding to a particularly nasty attack on McCartney's solo album by cranky critic Robert Christgau.

The editors took my letter, published it as an article, and paid me for it -- teaching me something that guides me to this very day -- writing is the easiest most enjoyable way for me to earn money. To be clear, I don't think "My Love" is in the first, second, or even third tier of great McCartney compositions and performances.

I think "Hope for Deliverance," for example, is vastly better. But nor is "My Love" anywhere near as atrocious as Sheffield indicates. And "Silly Love Songs" is probably a little worse, too. You can hear Paul singing about Linda in every line in that song, and that makes it real.

But what is it that engenders such anger at Paul McCartney? Sheffield has already said that he admires Christgau, but, in my view, Sheffield's a far better and more sensitive critic than Christgau. But what is it that evokes such dislike of a below- average, but certainly not so horrendous, Paul song? Who knows? I'm looking forward to more fresh evidence to hurl against McCartney's critics at his concert this week.

Note added a few days later: And here indeed is my review Levinson, b of McCartney's splendid three-hour concert. I usually think they're the second best rock group of all-time, but the Beach Boys for very different reasons aren't far behind.

Complet Lyrics of all Songs - THE BEATLES - PDF Drive

But I agree completely that The Beatles are better. And I agree with and very much like Sheffield's analysis of the Stones vis-a-vis The Beatles, and how the Stones finally broke free of and beyond the competition with The Beatles with their "Jumpin Jack Flash".

I remember the time I first heard that masterpiece on the radio, and I thought immediately that the Stones had done something, at very least and at last, very different from what The Beatles had ever done. So the Stones deserve credit, for, if nothing else, breaking free of the sway of The Beatles, which every band, especially those in England, had to be in the grip of, in one way or another, in those days and even now.

But one point I would also make about the Stones, which Sheffield didn't at least, not yet , is that the Stones were able to survive the death of Brian Jones and be vibrant and path-breaking as a band which The Beatles could not in the case of John Lennon.

And that's not only because The Beatles had already split apart a decade before Lennon's murder, but because he was essential to The Beatles in a way that Jones never was to the Stones. An equivalent blow to the Stones would have been the death of Mick Jagger, or perhaps Keith Richards. Which means that part of how we now evaluate the Stones is due to their continuing on to this very day as a band.

In living on into the 21st-century -- performing, writing, recording -- the Stones thus took their considerable accomplishments in the s and 70s to another whole, unique level. But Sheffield's still right that The Beatles were and are and always will be better. It's been more than three weeks since my last review. I've been writing all kinds of things, but I've finished a few now don't worry, I'll let you know when they're published , and I wanted to reward myself by getting back into Sheffield's book.

I'd intended to read a big chunk, but the first new chapter I encountered was so The whole book is newsworthy, meaning, I'm learning things about The Beatles and related groups in just about every chapter. But the chapter "Helter Skelter" taught me something big and newsworthy that goes well beyond The Beatles, and I truly didn't know before. Sheffield says if you ask people on street, 99 will tell you that Charles Manson not only incited but actually committed the infamous Tate-La Bianca murders.

I'd be one of those 99 -- or would have been, until I read this chapter, in which Sheffield explains that Manson was not even physically in the room in which the murders occurred.

He indeed was convicted of First Degree Murder, hence the assumption that he actually, physically did the murders -- but this is as factually incorrect as the notion that somehow The Beatles' "Helter Skelter" was responsible for the murders, because it seized and somehow commanded Manson's sick mind, an idiocy which Sheffield also intelligently disposes of.

I at least never believed for a moment that second idea -- you cannot, on general principle, blame what a psycho might be inspired to do on a popular culture inspiration. The blame resides with the human monster, not the works he may have read, heard, or seen. Sheffield argues that the combination of the Manson murders Beatles and Altamont murders Stones ended the s. They certainly put a serious dent in that age. But I've always argued, to the contrary, and contra Don MacLean, that ultimately the 60s never died.

I first made this point in published form in my little essay, "Benny Goodman and the Endless Sixties," in , republished in Electronic Chronicles in The forces of creativity and freedom unleashed in the s have taken many a beating in the ensuing years and decades, including most recently with the election and presidency of Donald Trump.

But the sixties live on, nonetheless. I just heard "Dr. Yesterday I heard "I'll Follow the Sun". And I just read an eye- opening chapter in Sheffield's wonderful book. More soon. Lots of reasons, including end of summer, but the most significant is I want this wonderful book to last as long as possible -- or reading the book, to be more precise.

With The Beatles Channel on Sirius XM, that I listen to daily, every time I'm alone in the car, I'm almost believing that The Beatles are still with is -- as indeed they are, or at least their timeless music. We've wanted to do this for years, but being inveterate cheapskates held us back. We didn't way to pay enough for decent seats.

But we finally did and I'll be back here with a full review later this week. Thanks : So I decided to read the next chapter in Sheffield's book, and, lo and behold, it's about Paul.

Not only that, it's a George vs. Paul chapter -- "Something" vs. Sheffield acknowledges that there are worse songs lurking on some of the solo albums, but scores "My Love" because it got so much trumpeted attention. So here I am defending Paul again like he needs my or anyone's defense , like I did all those years ago in my first published article, "A Vote McCartney," that appeared in The Village Voice in after I'd sent in a letter responding to a particularly nasty attack on McCartney's solo album by cranky critic Robert Christgau.

The editors took my letter, published it as an article, and paid me for it -- teaching me something that guides me to this very day -- writing is the easiest most enjoyable way for me to earn money. To be clear, I don't think "My Love" is in the first, second, or even third tier of great McCartney compositions and performances. I think "Hope for Deliverance," for example, is vastly better.

But nor is "My Love" anywhere near as atrocious as Sheffield indicates. And "Silly Love Songs" is probably a little worse, too. You can hear Paul singing about Linda in every line in that song, and that makes it real.

But what is it that engenders such anger at Paul McCartney? Sheffield has already said that he admires Christgau, but, in my view, Sheffield's a far better and more sensitive critic than Christgau.

But what is it that evokes such dislike of a below- average, but certainly not so horrendous, Paul song? Who knows? I'm looking forward to more fresh evidence to hurl against McCartney's critics at his concert this week.

Note added a few days later: And here indeed is my review Levinson, b of McCartney's splendid three-hour concert. These chapters were particularly superb, replete with discussions of the Abby Road photographs and the Paul-Is-Dead controversy -- actually, almost every chapter so far has been particularly superb -- but what I most enjoyed was Sheffield's assessment of the public's input on what are the lyrics of a song, transcending at times even the lyricist's, because the lyricist may not quite know what the lyrics are certainly not what they mean -- see what I said about I.

Richards in previous reviews and will say more about below , and may not even get them right. As examples of that, Sheffield cites Lennon's "two foot small," which he sang in "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away" instead of the intended "two foot tall," or the debate about whether Lennon was singing "hold you in his armchair, you can feel his disease" or "hold you in his arms, yeah, you can feel his disease" in "Come Together". I've always been an "arms" man myself, but, then again, when I first heard Elvis's 1 single I was sure he was singing "I'm in love, with Marsha Cup," whoever exactly she was.

But those kinds of mishearings happen all the time, and what Sheffield is really probing is what is the ultimately correct lyric when there is no absolutely factual record to consult?

Here I. Richards, the literary theorist who made his mark back in the s, always struck me as being of great value. Richards argued that it is the reader which can easily be translated to listener not the author of a text who is and has the ultimate authority on what that text means. In the case of the acoustic realm, where the words are intrinsically not as clear as in the visual, the question can sometimes become not just what the lyrics mean, but what they are.

Sheffield develops the question of lyrics and their reality out of the Paul-Is-Dead nonsense from the late s and after, which emerged out of interpretations of lyrics played backwards. Although I never believed any of that for instant -- it was a form of fake news, years ahead of its time see my Fake News in Real Context, b, for more on fake news in history -- I can report that Paul was definitely alive and well and sounding great at his Nassau Coliseum concert last week Unless he was an imposter.

But, in that case, that imposter has done an unbelievably great job, as Sheffield points out, from "Hey Jude" to "Golden Slumbers" and "The End".

McCartney sang them all last week, including "Let Me Roll It," proving the imposter continued showing his mettle even after The Beatles disbanded. And I'll be back with another review soon. Not the saddest, to be sure. That still awaits. But sad enough, and the lowest ebb we've encountered so far: which is The Beatles' final album, and whither not wither, I'd insist, but we'll get to that Paul McCartney. The question is whether the final album is Abby Road or Let It Be, the former recorded after but released before the latter I think I have that right.

Sheffield sees pros and cons to both albums being final, and goes with Abby Road, assuming the we don't take Let It Be to be an album.

It's certainly not a purely Beatles album, for sure, having been mutilated with the worst overdubbing of Phil Spector's career. Now, I've always loved much of Phil Spector's work, from the Teddybears to "Black Pearl" see my "Christmas Chronicle," , reprinted in Electronic Chronicles, , about Phil Spector's superb Christmas Album, featuring the Ronettes and all the great groups of that era singing Christmas songs, produced by Spector with his wall of sounds at its best.

But what he did to Let It Be just ain't it. So whether it's an album or not, since it's not just something The Beatles recorded -- it's much more than that, and for the worse, so actually much less -- the prize of final goes to Abby Road.

I don't blame Paul McCartney and in fact admire him for releasing the album in the 21st century stripped of Spector's sounds. I should add: my group The Other Voices was co-produced by Ellie Greenwich, and she loved Phil, and she's gone now, so sincere apologies to Ellie's spirit.

But this brings us to McCartney -- the album as well as the man. This started me, for better or worse, on my career as a writer.

The letter turned article was a defense of the album and the man -- and its follow- up, Ram -- from a snooty, vicious attack by Voice critic Robert Christgau, who at some point in his long career was appointed by someone as the "Dean" of rock criticism.

But the Paul McCartney overdubs make everything on these albums breakthroughs in music production, which go beyond The Beatles insofar as the McCartney albums were pretty much the reflection of just one person. As I've also noted in these reviews before, Sheffield admires Christgau, and doesn't share quite my high opinion of McCartney, at least not in the years after The Beatles' break-up.

But that's ok. Or, Sheffield is right that that's what many regularly published critics started saying back then and some are still saying to some extent.

As for me, most of what I publish is not rock criticism, but I suspect my view of McCartney as great in his solo years as were Lennon and Harrison -- different, of course, from The Beatles, but still unsurpassed -- is shared by millions of fans to this very day. More reviews of this outstanding book soon. The Lennon song that receives the most attention from Sheffield in this chapter -- and I'm tempted to say the best, though there's a danger of over-using that term for this book, so I'll say one of the longest with a gem or more in almost ever paragraph -- is "God," and its anthem of disbelief disbelief which Lennon indeed later renounces or disbelieves in "Mind Games".

In his deconstruction of that song "God" , Sheffield of course concludes with the shocker that Lennon no longer believes in The Beatles. Along the way, Dylan is disavowed as Zimmerman , and I was surprised Sheffield didn't mention Dylan's "With God On Our Side," not only the best anti-war song but the best anti-belief in God song or puncturing the false use of God ever written, in my opinion.

I played that song for my "Freedom of Expression" graduate course at Fordham University this term. Sheffield brings into this discussion his own personal struggle as a Roman Catholic with belief, which, as it Sheffield's personal experience always does, enriches his assessment of Lennon. Since I never had a struggle like this, I can't completely relate to this -- I'm Jewish, culturally, and an agnostic on the existence of God, though I tend to agree that there are profound things in this universe, such as the origin of the universe itself, that surpass our understanding, and maybe that's one reason Lennon's "Across the Universe" is one of my all-time favorite songs.

But I can relate to Sheffield's view that Lennon "was the greatest of rock and roll singers- as-singers," and agree completely with that. And that includes Paul McCartney, who's accorded praise and I think criticism by Sheffield for not believing "Paul has not a scrap of religiosity discernible in him" with the implication that all that Paul ultimately believes in is himself.

I don't know or much care what McCartney believes in. All I care about and love is his music, both as part of The Beatles and after. And, with a little luck, I'll be back soon with my next review. Unnecessary but Brilliant Defense of McCartney Next up in Rob Sheffield's one-of-a-kind Dreaming The Beatles, which I've been reviewing here now about a chapter a month, because that's the way I like it, is an outstanding defense of Paul McCartney, as only Sheffield with his combination of depth, irreverence, and sheer style could do it.

The thing is -- as you'll know from reading almost any one of my previous reviews here -- I don't think McCartney needs any defense. I find people who don't like his music tone-deaf, jealous, or at best marching to a drummer so different from mine that I have nothing to say to them.

It's not that I love every song McCartney has written and recorded. It's just that I love more of them then I do any other artist's.

It's not that I don't love Lennon just as much, and that I don't acknowledge that many of Lennon's songs, from when he was with The Beatles like "Rain" and when he was on his own like "Jealous Guy" or even "Whatever Gets You Through the Night" are easily as good as or even better than McCartney's best.

It's just I've gotten a little more, in sum, over the years, from McCartney's music than from Lennon's, and this was so even before the unacceptably tragic day when Lennon was murdered my Loose Ends Saga, a, concludes with a time-traveling plan to prevent that.

And it's not that I agree with every move McCartney has made outside of the studio, either. That never happened but I was thrilled when my son, Simon Vozick-Levinson, , , got to interview McCartney twice for Rolling Stone decades later. But regarding McCartney's music -- the worst I can say about it is some of his songs and recordings aren't as wonderful as others.

Which is why I think his career needs no defense. Yet Sheffield's defense is both a pleasure to read and useful. I just listened to it on YouTube, and concur with Sheffield. He might have also mentioned two McCartney songs from a little later which are among my favorites — "My Brave Face" which he wrote with Elvis Costello, and "Hope of Deliverance" -- by, hey, different strokes. And Sheffield's takes on various aspects of McCartney's life and career -- ranging from quick notes like "he did less to fuck up his good luck than any rock star ever" to a magnificent, extended little essay on Paul McCartney and Cary Grant as two very similar expressions of working class Brits become famous in America -- are genius.

And just for good measure, I agree completely with Sheffield's praise for McCartney's concert in - my wife and I felt the same about his concert in Hempstead, NY this past Fall. See Levinson, b, for my review. All of which adds up to McCartney, though his admirability should be self-evident, is fortunate to have someone with Sheffield's pop-cultural sensitivity and analytic depth writing about him in this destined-to-be classic book.

Don't Let Me Down (Beatles song)

McCartney doesn't need this defense but he more than deserves it. And I'll be reviewing more of this book soon. This is the case -- what better way to read a great book -- even though we're knocking on the door of the saddest part of the story, and indeed are already there. Sheffield presents a grimmer than usual portrait of George Harrison in the s, after The Beatles disbanded. He's dissolute, unable to hit his notes or remember his lyrics, verbally happy about the breakup but ravaged by cocaine and booze.

I knew none of this in the 70s.

I was beginning to pull away from music by the middle of the decade, and wouldn't regain my daily proximity until, well I'd heard "All Things Must Pass" in the s, but didn't recognize it for what it was until , when I was finishing up the first edition of New New Media , and chose "All Things Must Pass" as, ironically, a perfect example of the immortality of music on YouTube, or of some great things never passing.

He agrees, and judges it one of the very best of The Beatles songs released to the world after the group broke up. I'd agree, and would go a little further. The lyric is in a class by itself, and couldn't have been written by Lennon or McCartney, or by Lennon and McCartney, either. If Harrison was significantly responsible for The Beatles, in his way as much as Lennon or McCartney, "All Things Must Pass," with its wisdom, sensitivity, and haunting, harrowing, comforting cutting edge, tells us why.

Ironically but indicatively, the best performance of "All Things Must Pass" now on video is at the George memorial concert, and is sung just perfectly by Paul. And, of course, I can't now find this video on YouTube -- but it is on Vimeo. Paul has announced the next stop on the journey to Egypt Station: Paul McCartney will make his eagerly anticipated return to the road with his new 'Freshen Up' tour.

From one celebration in Chicago at the Hard Rock to 23 countries last year and thanks to fans and the Hard Rock this year already has participation in over 50 countries!! Check out http: With great stories about the making of the movie and fresh insight into what makes it so iconic and influential, The Yellow Sub Sandwich features all you need to know about the movie and why you should go and see it, where it was intended to be experienced, back on the big screen.

James Corden heads to Liverpool for a special day with Paul McCartney spent exploring the city of Paul's youth, visiting his childhood home where he wrote music with John Lennon, performing songs in a local pub and of course driving around singing a few of Paul's biggest hits.

More Late Late Show: Paul invites you on a musical journey to Egypt Station, estimated time of arrival Friday 7th September 7, by way of Capitol Records. We are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the classic animation film yellowsubmarine with a brand new limited edition 7" picture disc!

Get yours at https: