Some weeks ago I picked up the “new” Beatles album, Love. It’s received tons of critical acclaim and even ranked on some magazine’s “Best of 2006” lists. But I’ve listened to a few times and I’m not quite sure I get it.
Don’t get me wrong; it’s a solid listening experience. I just don’t think critics should be ranking it on “best of” lists, if only because part of the allure of the album is how it’s a collage of sound taken from various Beatles recordings. If one (such as me) without a foundation in the Beatles catalogue listens to the album it doesn’t sound that dissimilar to other Beatles albums (yet it’s supposed to be a revolutionary album).
I think that this is an album that’s “for fans only” or at least an album that only true fans would fully appreciate. Anyone with only a passing knowledge of the Beatles songs is going to be nonplussed and not get what the hype is about. “Wow, a bassline from a song I’ve never heard is put on a track that I’m barely family with? Instant classic!”
Of course this stems from the fact that The Beatles are critical darlings who can do no wrong in the eyes of some, even as solo artists (except Ringo… poor, poor Ringo, whose name spell-check doesn’t even acknowledge).
I mean, Love is a cool album, and I’m sure that the show is great. But there’s just too much prerequisite knowledge that’s needed to really get how great it’s supposed to sound. It’s like watching Scary Movie without having seen the movies it’s parodying; the experience is greatly diminished almost to the point confusion. And I don’t’ see how an album like that, which is effectively for music geeks, earns a place on a “best of” list.
