dischuckin wrote:

i agree.

shoobee doowaap

 MilidelEubanks wrote:

Well said!

I've always felt the fast version emphasizes the anger aspect. The slow version emphasizes the "it's going to be alright". Both completely legitimate. Good songs can express multiple emotions in multiple ways.

 Hippostar wrote:
Umm, you do know that this was included on The Beatles [better known as "The White Album], right?  Maybe not.

Listen again; it has a lot to offer.

The tempo just crawls, compared to the better known alternative -- and for me, the faster version is more urgent, and aligns better with the urge to start a revolution. This version sounds like, "Yeah, a revolution. Sounds like a good idea. Help me get off the couch, willya?"

Just heard today that the next album to be remixed is going to be Revolver.

Maybe more complicated that the other ones because it was on 4 tracks only.

scrubbrush wrote:

As far as studio double albums from great bands go, I have to say that I rank this album just below:
1. The Rolling Stone - Exile on Main Street
2. Led Zeppelin - Physical Graffiti
3. The Clash - London Calling

joejennings wrote:

Any of the early Chicago albums, like Chicago Transit Authority

Reminds me of my travels thru India in the early 90's. White Album playing on my CD player as I ride the train from Delhi -

 KarlsBigEarz wrote:


Yep! Mixed to sound good on speakers (studio monitors). They rarely referenced to headphones, while mixing & mastering. Back in '68, high fidelity stereo headphones such as Koss & Sennheiser were just starting to become popular.

The Beatles: ...make it stop... make it stop!

In the Matter of the Beatles' Revolution:

I have always loved this version better than the single, which is great in its own right.        

 Y'know -- for what it's worth...

Not sure if "different" always means "better".

Sometimes there's a good reason the artist chooses to shelf their work and goes another direction.

 scrubbrush wrote:


I am trying to think of more, but, all I can come up with are live albums!

 KarlsBigEarz wrote:


Yep. It was mixed to listen on speakers. I still like to listen to it in FLAC with my K701s, regardless of how weird! Today, most studios keep crummy consumer grade (Beats, etc.) phones & buds for reference purposes and comparison, to hear the mixes and masters, the same way the average person does. In the 70s, many studios had Jensen car audio speakers, in addition to their high end monitors for that purpose. Some would even take the music out to cars in the parking lot!

 KarlsBigEarz wrote:


True. Where did all that brass come from, or was it ear wax? Balance out of phase for modern ears maybe?

Like some other Beatles songs, difficult to listen to on headphones. 

As far as studio double albums from great bands go, I have to say that I rank this album just below:
1. The Rolling Stone - Exile on Main Street
2. Led Zeppelin - Physical Graffiti
3. The Clash - London Calling

the varying tempo between versions seem to compliment each other...I'm grateful to have both versions to listen to.

 bendame wrote:
 
Too much hate on this thread.
This comment is particularly pathetic (typos and obscenity are not surprising).

Great version of a great song.

Boy, the irony of this version never gets old.

 lizardking wrote:
 
The slow version gives the lyrics the gravitas the fast version didn't. 

 sfyi2001 wrote:
 
Like the matter betwixt your ears?

Now we know where the frenetic vs. slooow versions concept came from!
Right, Eric with Layla?

Shoobeedoowah!

My independence song

Love

🤘😎

when it came out the Beatles sounded a bit old fashioned at that time.today it is great!

Pick the slow version or the rock-out one. I'm not partial. Depends on mood and company and where one is, such as an office or blasting up I 15 at 80 m.p.h. 

 kurtster wrote:
 
It's the White Album cut.

ditto!

A Masterpiece indeed....... 10+!

So what mix is this ?  From the 50th ?  It's really great.

 midreaming wrote:
 
"Boy band" ? Not quite there sport.
Glad you commented though. Good to to see a variety of useless opinions from time to time.

 Larrygrrl wrote: 
I hear Macca will be covering "Hold Me Now" on his next tour!

T Rex anybody?

(And no, I'm not joking.)

I know I'm going to get lambasted for this, but I still believe the Thomson Twins' cover of this song is an improvement on the original. 

 VH1 wrote: 
Exactly.
It's a friggin' pop song; is it really worth the hatred and vitriol?

 ScottishWillie wrote:  
He and Yoko were illegal aliens in the USA...  everybody in my elevators loves this song, and this marvelous double album...  we be dancing like happy hippies...  love sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll...  hope life is grand for you with your Brexit revolution, ScottishWillie...  you got my vote, whichever way you voted...

 ipestell wrote: 
True, it's a good notion that people should "be more tolerant of the choices of others", but claiming that "musical creativity just gone down hill and hit rock bottom" since the 1960s is not a very good example of that notion. Different does not mean "inferior" either.

 midreaming wrote:  Holy pretensiousness Batman!

If you were half as clever as you think you are you'd be twice as clever as you really are.

 midreaming wrote: 
You could do with a chill pill, mate! 

Geez, I do not know how people become so spite- and hateful. You must have a really very sorry life. 

 ipestell wrote: 
Well said! 

And for the song: Love it! 

 midreaming wrote: 
But hasn't musical creativity just gone down hill and hit rock bottom since those drug induced days?

How much more beautiful this world would be if people could be more tolerant of the choices of others. Different is not wrong. 

Really wish Bill would play Revolution, at least occasionally.I far prefer the more rockier version.

 boontonite wrote: 
because it was the first song on an album side I always thought this was an important song and they wanted it showcased, they and others always started an album side with something extra good
I gave this a 10

 bronorb wrote: 
'not trolling you little know it all. i could care less what you or many others here think about music or what i have to say. you can respond or not. it matters not a whit. i'm voicing an opinion like everybody else, including you. 

 midreaming wrote: 
Trolling doesn't work here at RP.

 boontonite wrote: 
Disagree completely.  This version was on the White Album and I always loved it more than "Revolution." I think they felt that both versions deserved to be heard.

The Beatles were one of the few bands that could actually cover themselves and bring something new to the table.

When you listen to the various studios out-takes albums (Anthologies, etc) it is obvious that there is a "right" way and a "wrong" to do a song. The Beatles always seemed to pick the right version to release, just as they did with the original, masterful "Revolution" single. This version just seems like filler, very unusual for them.

i love his voice
and how he uses it 

 midreaming wrote: 
Wow! Tell us how you really feel.

Black bird too! please!!!

drug induced social mediocrity, political prozac. how much more beautiful would this world be if they'd have just stayed home and STFU. ef'n big money boy band, band wagon fluff

Do the Beatles want to hear this song again?

 

If you want to see John Lennon in an entertaining political debate, here's his argument with Al Capp (of L'il Abner fame — the phrase "wingnut" might've been invented for him )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYxFO8o-t2E

 

 Lazarus wrote:  Did John Lennon even have the vote in America?

The original of this is one of the few Beatles song I never liked. This version however is a masterpiece!

Everybody in my alien space craft loves this revolutionary song...  John Lennon was NOT a closet Republican...

My favorite version of this song. "ah-ooh shoo-be doo-wa"

Oh, oh, oh, all right ..... !

10 next

 rdo wrote: 
THE Nazi's  called  themselves socialists also, doesn't mean they were interested in fair play for all, does it? anyone who spouts right wing b.s. is a right wing b.ser. in my book.

 fredriley wrote: 
Dear Leader,

Thank you for re-educating us.  Please send us all to one of your happy fun indoctrination camps so we can be as enlightened as you are about the total joys and doublespeak about freedom in the modern socialist state.  We look forward to more educational and expert communiques from the Ministry of Truth from which your gleaming words of wisdom emanate.

--The Unwashed Masses

 bendame wrote: 
to annoy idiots and the like

 moodfood wrote: 
    

Why ruin a beautifull Peter Gabriel song by folllowing it with this piece of shit??

 MiracleDrug wrote: 
you must take in the fact that the super right wing controls the American press as well as the government. the Nazi's from g.h.w. bush's grandfather , to "W" won. hence the " patriot act" replacing all other rights in the country.

 fredriley wrote: 
Thank you, Fred.
Many Americans (but not all) seem to be brainwashed into believing that any form of government other than far-right Capitalism is somehow evil. Maybe it goes back to the Cold War, maybe it's O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck & Coulter, I dunno. Not sure why having the government care for the sick, poor and homeless is such a horrible thing.

 rdo wrote: 
(sigh) And our resident barking Right troll strikes again. You do not have the faintest fucking idea of what socialism is, and for sure do not know what the fuck you're raving about. Not all socialism is statist (clue: look up 'anarchism' in Wikipedia), and not all socialist states are "totalitarian". If you want "totalitarian", look at the Beacon of Freedom that is your own US of A, that spies on every aspect of a person's life, as the Snowden files so graphically demonstrated. Best youse sort out the NSA and CIA before you start talking about "totalitarianism". People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Oh, and do some reading on socialism as well - a little education is a wonderful thing, though it does have a discomforting tendency to destroy comfortable myths.

Every time I see contributions from you, who considers himself a "liberal", I'm reminded of how extreme Right-wing US politics is compared to pretty much anywhere else in the world. Honestly, youse are more barking than Battersea Dogs Home.

Timeless masterpiece.  dig that bass 

I walked into work one day a few years ago, and one of my colleagues actually had a picture of "Chairman Mao" in his stuff. I immediately quoted the song. "Revolution 1" had never even occurred to him.
 

"who said we can't cover our own songs??  we're the friggin' beatles furchrissakes!!  we can do whatever the hell we want!!"

 oldsaxon wrote: 

This is what the "free marketeers" and right (wrong)-wingers always conveniently forget about...at least until their schemes start to go tits up, like in '08. Then suddenly the free market needs an "adjustment", and the government is their buddy. Capitalism will always survive because socialism will be there to save it.

Jefferson and a few others thought that government should be a buffer between those with power and wealth and the common people, for the protection of the latter. But now in the U.S., we have government in collusion with corporations and the wealthy against the citizenry, a form of fascism.

 hagz21 wrote: 
Apparently the musical irony is lost on you.

I've been hearing more than a few Beatles songs here and elsewhere the past few weeks and thinking to myself that they are starting to sound a little hollow and dated now.  Maybe its been the events of the day have been so stressful and empty of anything uplifting.  Even when Penny Lane came on yesterday, I first thought how nice, but by the end of it I was like, this isn't working anymore, it seems too trite and light.

And then this came on.  Damn it has aged so well, sounding better with age and showing their genius, their caring and their humor all in one neat little ditty that even comes with a timeless message.  Just as I was beginning to wonder if it really happened like it used to feel.

Yes it does and still does, at least this one.

 oldsaxon wrote: 

Really?  I'd love to hear who the good ones were.  My god.  You cannot be serious.  Socialism and Democracy are mutually exclusive propositions.  If you believe in democracy, then there is no need for Orwellian constructs like "Social Democratic Party".  Democracy is democracy, it means rule by the people.  That's it.  It's that simple.  Socialism is cradle-to-grave supervision of a person's life by the Great Super-Corporation (aka The State).  No people have ever democratically supported, at the ballot box, this type of totalitarian control over their lives.  Whenever people have been given the chance, they have chosen freedom over imprisonment. 


A recent book was written by two highly regarded scholars on this issue.  It is awesome and titled: Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty.  (by two American economists: Daron Acemoglu, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and James A. Robinson, a Harvard professor)

 hagz21 wrote: 

My, my!  Aren't you rigid! You don't belong in any revolution. You belong with The Reformation....

I'm sorry, there is (nor should be) any "shoo-be-do-wap" in any revolution!

 bushrat wrote: 
Say what?!

 Ramenoodler wrote: 

You're thinking of the cut from Abbey Road

It seemed like this version has been artificially slowed down somehow. Am I just remembering a different, faster version?

And yeah.....these guys knew how to rock when they wanted to.

 Hannio wrote: 
We need to work toward the day that there is no more Big Oil, no matter who runs it.

Fossil fuels like oil and coal burning are creating the climate change that has manifested itself in storms like Sandy.

We need faster development of alternative fuels - bio diesel & long life batteries for our cars and wind, solar and hydro for our electricity needs, and leaving that to the free market alone will slow that development until profits are possible.  This has been true of every major technology advance since time immemorial - government must be involved with private enterprise to keep progress moving forward for the people.

 Hannio wrote: 
It wouldn't be any worse than the corruption and graft displayed by the corporations and most profits would go into the public coffers instead of executive bonuses and off shore tax havens. At least with a government, you can have a vote every now and then. All you need to do to keep governments in line is participate. 

enjoy the music.  does that seem like a silly idea?

 bachbeet wrote: 

So you think the government will run big oil efficiently, without corruption and graft, with the best interests of the consumer in mind?  Your naivete is breathtaking. 

Mr fixit: I won't go so far as you have and say that there could be such a utopian socialist state.  I will go so far as to say that one industry that should be nationalized is Big Oil.  I see absolutely no reason we should continue to allow these mega corps from gouging us.  Prices rise for no apparent reason; even during a recession (which worsens that recession).  And when one realizes how many everyday goods are made from petrochemicals it becomes obvious that the oil companies have the whole world by the cojones.

Always liked all three versions of Revolution.  Including #9.

 Misterfixit wrote: 
They pulled down all of the statues of Stalin a while back. Your socialism is badly formed. Go back and read some Trotsky. Or.... if your trying to be funny....ha! ha! ha!.

 Misterfixit wrote: 
You are either a very funny comedian, or, someone with an utterly terrifying understanding of society, politics, current events, and human nature.   Your Authoritarian Socialism cannot be serious, so I am leaning toward thinking you are joking.  If you are serious...One person mentioned Scandanavia below, and suggested that they were "Socialist".   These are outdated labels.  Scandanavia is sufficiently democratic, as is the USA.  Policies can be branded, labeled, marketed to the masses in a variety of ways, it does not matter what you call them.  What matters is that all citizens have an equal vote in deciding those policies.  Whether you are serious or not, thanks for the interesting article.  We need more of this on RP.   I am always baffled by the army of idiots who complain about thoughtful commentary on this board.   A typical song has about one page of commentary per year, and the average lenght of a post is about 5 words, plus a couple of emoticons, yet these idiots still complain about long comments that touch on the political aspects of the music.  
   

 MiracleDrug wrote: 

 MiracleDrug wrote: 
The per capita "adjustment" is essential to the PPP, which you mentioned earlier, and also relevant to the GDP, since it is how it affects the standards of living within those countries.  My original point was that "Socialism" or "Social Democracy" apparently has worked for the Scandinavian nations.
Anyhow, good research - great tune.

 MiracleDrug wrote:  It's the per capita that's crucial here, those pesky Scandinavian social democracies are better off than most chunks of the global populous, and with their succesfully integrated social and recycling services shame the US with its third world body parts, its second world heart, and its first world head largely in denial in a cloud of GDP smog. At least we don't get Another Day in Paradise from Mr Collins hereabouts, that would really extract the P and send us lunging into the abyss-mal. Mercies. What civilizes us (small u).

 MiracleDrug wrote: 
uh, you been watching the economic news lately ? So called "de-mock-cracy isn't fairing too well either

 WonderLizard wrote: 
Like, the Chinese have won "the war" . The west is in debt to a a "Communist" country. Kind of ironic huh?

 Proclivities wrote:  

hmm...

GDP List by the CIA World Factbook (2000-2010)

1	United States	14,660,000	2010 est.
2	China, People's Republic of	5,878,000	2010 est.
3	Japan	5,459,000	2010 est.
4	Germany	3,316,000	2010 est.
5	France	2,583,000	2010 est.
6	United Kingdom	2,247,000	2010 est.
7	Brazil	2,090,000	2010 est.
8	Italy	2,055,000	2010 est.
9	Canada	1,574,000	2010 est.
10	India	1,538,000	2010 est.
11	Russia	1,465,000	2010 est.
12	Spain	1,410,000	2010 est.
13	Australia	1,236,000	2010 est.
14	Mexico	1,039,000	2010 est.
15	Korea, South	1,007,000	2010 est.
16	Netherlands	783,300	2010 est.
17	Turkey	741,900	2010 est.
18	Indonesia	706,700	2010 est.
19	Switzerland	523,800	2010 est.
20	Poland	468,500	2010 est.
21	Belgium	465,700	2010 est.
22	Sweden	455,800	2010 est.

25

Norway

414,500

2010 est.

31

Denmark

310,800

2010 est.

36

Finland

239,200

2010 est

if you adjust this per capita LIGHTLY populated countries will benefit, BUT if you look at the TOTALS you could sum ALL of Scandinavia and still not reach the GDP of the USA...

 romeotuma wrote: 
In an obvious effort to avoid the whole political argument - I like this version ("ah-um-shoo-be-do-wuh, ah-um-shoo-be-do-wuh...") because it's not bombastic. It's the same message, geared to a champagne-and-caviar audience.  Lennon was nothing if not clever and perceptive. I love the full-out rock version - it's why I bought the album in the first place - but this version is a sly investment in the future.

Mr. Lennon knew what he was doing.

Sweden has achieved over 14% recent immigrant citizenship this year, a sharp turnaround from its recent past. More intriguing, though, it has become a political asylum target destination for refugees of the Balkan and Iraqi conflicts in the last two decades. Sweden's normal, healthy "Socialist"  response to those in need is burdened with the track record of slums forming in its larger cities. A change from a homogenous population that took care of its own...? I appreciate your comments Proclivities

 MiracleDrug wrote: 

I have casually checked it out: Norway's PPP and GDP appear to be higher than those of the United States - among the highest on the planet, in fact.  The GDPs of Denmark and Sweden are also higher than those of the US and among the top ten in the world.  Finland is among the top 25 nations in both categories as well.  Research sources may vary.  Of course, having a relatively uncrowded and largely homogeneous population in those nations, may also help.

 justsomeone wrote: 
I agree that there is a difference, but the latter is arguably a reformed or "evolved" off-shoot of the former.  As you surely know, it may also depend on who you ask.

 WonderLizard wrote: 
Oh yeah, I got it very clearly first time I heard it in 1969.  John was non-violent, remember?

"We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out?"
 ——
"But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is, brother, you'll have to wait"
 ——
"You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know, you'd better free your mind instead"
 ——
And the wisecrack about Mao's picture still makes me smile.

I'm starting to wonder if anyone gets the irony to this song:

"But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao/You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow"

 Huey wrote: 
Let's face, it's a great take on a well-known classic in a downtempo rendering. Even if it is by the Beatles. It was great then, and it's great now. 9.
 

I guess you've never seen happiness survey data from those countries, either

 MiracleDrug wrote: 

 Proclivities wrote: 

There's a big difference between Socialism and Social democracy

 Proclivities wrote: 
I guess you've never checked out the GDP or PPP of Scandinavian countries...

 MiracleDrug wrote: 
I guess you've never heard of Scandinavia.

yeah socialism...

like THAT ever works...

 woodchuk wrote: 
No, No, No, you missed the sarcastic reference.  In the book "The Turner Diaries", 'the day of the rope' was a catch-phrase to mean when the uber-conservative, survivalist, Religous revolutionaries would take to the streets and lynch anyone and everyone they targeted.  Blacks, Jews, Browns, Yellows, Liberals, politicians, peace officers .. all were fodder for the mad world of The Turner Diaries.  For example, I, myself, am a Socialist and I have believed for years in a strong, centralized, authoritarian government which would provide Social Justice for all people.  However citizens of our socialist people's republic would be required to participate in that government's governance in a multitude of ways, including Projects for the improvement of the infrastructure and so forth.  No capitalistic business would be permitted to exist and instead all methods of production would be Nationalized and administered by People's Committees.  Politicians, lobbyists, representative government of the sort we have today would become redundant, since  once the People's Revolutionary Committees became fully formed and active at all levels (neighborhood, town, city, state and federal), all social actions would be governed by Plenary Congresses of the People.  The ordinary citizen, committed to the destiny of the Socialist People's Republic of America, would become the direct implementer of public requirements such as farming, industry, living space growth, environmental controls.  Within a few generations, the SPRA would become a paradise for all: no smog, no hazardous chemicals, no murder of innocent animals, no rapine plundering of the land, no disastrous nuclear power plants.  The SPRA would, of course, retain a very strong defensive force of Peace-Keepers, who would integrate completely with the United Nations and assist that august body in the righting of wrongs throughout the world.  There would be no poor, no homeless, no manipulative super-rich, and certainly a complete and utter end to the racial, religious, and other segregation manifested in today's USA.  So, you see, you pulled the trigger much to early in your commentary.  Speaking of "racist rubbish that should have disappeared in the 50's and 60's", I hope you fully realize that race-hatred has existed since the formation of the USA, when rich planters, slave-holder, white men brought the country into existence.  That racial hatred continues today and you can easily see how it is a cancer which has metastasized into hatred of differing sexual preferences, transgender-ism, political activism, and the strangling of civil, argumentative debate in our society.  Anything which is perceived to be "extreme" by one person is branded extreme by others who follow a kind of spoor which somehow leads them to on to bemoan that particular deviation from their narrow-minded proclivities.  I have a lot more to say about social issues in this country and how only Authoritarian Socialism will permit the nation's survival, but will reserve my thoughts for the podium.  As for the ideals of the Beatles, their wish for peace and harmony amongst all peoples of the world was not necessarily an ephemeral desire; such a status is possible but only after gigantic social welfare projects.  Projects, which are only doable under the aegis of a Socialist People's Republic.

 Misterfixit wrote: 

More valid every day.

"Slow shoulder shake......c'mon, you know you want to......."
laughs, i was just doing that when i read the comment.

Shoo-be-doo-wah, Alright!

 parrothead wrote: 

My bad, I like the second version much better as I am sure most everyone else as well.

Draggy and druggy. I don't mind it. There's a mood for this. 

Yawn!

 sirdroseph wrote: 

If I'm not mistaking, I think this is the original.