let me start by saying Mark Lewinson wrote a better book. That's my opinion. Much of the material in Revolution has obviously been lifted from Lewinson's work. Now, lay people might think that Revolution might be absolutely brilliant. I think McDonald writes really well and can hold your attention with his incendiary opinions as well as is obvious perfunctory knowledge of music. What I mean is he certainly understands musical terminology and he also knows a bit about recording techniques fromthe 60s. When it comes to that he knows more than I do. I was born in 1955. It's also very clear to me that he is not a fan of The Beatles and he's completely enamored with his opinions and the style in which he writes them. Look, I know a bit about music and songwriting. I did a lot of sessions work with some major well-known Talent back in the 70s and 80s. I played keyboards with many of those same bands and people on tour for many years. I'm mentioning this in my review only so  the people who read this understand that I am not a neophyte. I know and understand music, great songwriting and superlative production. I also know garbage. I've been involved with both throughout the years. I need to mention that anybody who believes that God Only Knows by The Beach Boys is the greatest pop song ever written has a lot to learn. It's a Wonderful song, and it's beautiful. The harmonies are ethereal. Is it the best pop song ever written? That is debatable and I don't know if the author is still with us or not but if he is I could debate him on that subject and I would win. The Beatles wrote some garbage too. Everybody does. Who knows why. Perhaps they thought it would fly and it didn't. Perhaps they were under a deadline which they were in many instances and had to crank something out real quickly. Perhaps and very likely the Beatles were under the influence and put out something that many either didn't understand, or were  playing badly because when you're under the influence of hallucinogenics you certainly lack a lot in the perspective department. When McDonald comes out and says that "Something" wasn't great song because of the lack of a middle eight then he needs to have his head examined. Who says you need to have a middle eight to have a great song? My guess would be that half the Beatles catalog was void of a middle 8 or Bridge as they call it today and who cares. Can you listen to it? Was the melody beautiful? Did it have a message? Did the words mean anything? Did they have to mean anything? "Something" happens to be one of the covered songs of all time. Remember, we're not talking about Sinatra singing Gershwin. We're talking about a form of music that had never been done before. They created their genre. Back to God only knows. Was that a beautiful song? Absolutely! Were the words beautiful and meaningful? YOU BET. Do I love that song? God only knows I do:-). The love of music is subjective. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I don't believe it's fair for an author to assess a songwriters work from afar and on top of that talk about a song that was written by a person who he thought didn't like or didn't trust women. You can't beat down a beautiful song that was written by somebody that was in a bad way at the time when it came to dealing with the opposite sex. How do we psychologically analyze John Lennon? Is or was McDonald a licensed mental health counselor? Does a man's frame of mind make his writing any less relevant or poignant? I don't think so. In my mind I believe that McDonald had a real problem with rock music and with The Beatles. There cannot be another explanation for his critiques. And finally to my point. In my mind this book was a hatchet job and nothing more. You can't take a catalog of 200 + songs written by arguably the greatest... ....... .. innovators of all time and dislike 70% of the work. Actually you can but that does not make you right. His work needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Having said all that I rated This book as highly as I did because it was a fun read. It's like I learned years ago. Take what you want and leave the rest. I left most of it, but, notwithstanding I enjoyed reading it because it's an just an opinion and we're all entitled our own opinions. Just because the writer knows what a Leslie is and understands ADT, doesn't mean he's an expert. In talking about the Beatles and expressing his idea that their lyrics and song construction was not as good as it should be because, to paraphrase him they were they were extremely taken with themselves is exactly my thought about McDonald. He writes as though he really believes that he is the absolute definitive expert on The Beatles music .That's BS.

In closing I would just like to disclose that I'm a huge fan of The Beatles. I think my review makes it pretty obvious but it doesn't differ from most of the other people who wrote a review here because we all read the book. You don't read a book like this unless you understand music and love the subject that it's written about. I grew up with these guys on TV and radio. They were considerably older than me. They were my childhood idols. I took piano lessons because of the Beatles. So yeah, I'm a fan. A gigantic fan who really enjoyed a hatchet job that was written about my all-time favorite band. Was 'A Day in the Life' the greatest rock song ever written? was Let It Be the greatest song that was ever written? And I'm talking genre of course. In my mind they were the two best rock songs ever written. It's an opinion. Only an opinion. When reading the book I would turn each page and think to myself Well, he is certainly not going to bash Here There and Everywhere. But he did. Well he has to love Yesterday, but he didn't. I thought to myself, Good Day Sunshine.... That's creative pop song writing at its best. Something bad to say about that one too and I could go on and on but you need to read the book and judge it for yourself. There is one last thing. The Mark Lewinson book gives credit where credit is due. That book recognizes George Martin's contribution and acknowledges that the Beatles wouldn't have been the Beatles especially in their formative years without his production and his musical genius. There is nary a mention of him in McDonald's work. I don't understand why. George Martin was really The Unofficial fifth Beatle. I'm finished rambling in the rest is up to you. I say read it. It's interesting

This is a great book for the hardcore Beatles fan who is already deeply familiar with the band's output and wants to take his or her understanding and appreciation to a new level of depth and sophistication. MacDonald takes a critical eye to each song and is not afraid to criticize when necessary: not every Beatles tune is a gem and MacDonald argues clearly and cogently when he thinks the boys fall short. His analysis of milestones in the Beatles catalogue, such as Hard Days Night, A Day in the Life, Strawberry Fields, I am the Walrus, Revolution (#1 and #9) is fascinating. He places the Beatles within the broader context of what was going on in the 1960s culturally, politically, and economically (the book includes a lengthy opening essay on that subject). Reading this book gives you a new appreciation for just how special the Beatles were, and how we will never see their likes again. The best way to read this book is with your headphones plugged into your iPod so you can listen to each song as MacDonald describes and analyzes them.

Warning: this book is NOT for the gullible Beatle fanatic who praises their every breath; as Beatle books go, this was one of the bigger challenges to read through simply because I vehemently disagreed with many of the author's viewpoints.

However, while MacDonald chooses to trash some of my all-time favorite Beatle songs (Nowhere man being of special note), I can't fault him for his opinions; opinions which are supported by substantial musical knowledge and, I must add, expressed in a very well written, thought out manner.

While MacDonald comes down pretty hard on the aspects of the group with which he finds fault, he conversely gives ample praise where he believes it's warranted (best exemplified in the Revolver-Sgt. Pepper period).

Song by song musical analysis aside, MacDonald does a beautiful job in placing The Beatles within the context of their time period. Much like Jonathan Gould in Can't Buy Me Love, he goes to great lengths portraying The Beatles as much a product OF their time as they were integral creators of it and, always, one of it's most revered reflectors.

The book does have it's share of technical errors which will annoy many of the most ardent and knowledgeable fans (as it did me, admittedly) but by the end of the book these are easily cast aside and forgiven; they are not, after all, THAT important to the overall "picture".

Anyone who is a serious follower of the music of The Beatles and their significance as a major cultural entity of the 1960's should own this book. MacDonald does not set out to fall at their feet or misconstrue them in any way. His opinions are controversial but valid in their own way. His thoughts are filled with detailed perception which, to be very honest, never get tiresome.

By the end of the book, it becomes clear to every Beatle fan (lest there was any confusion up to that point) that MacDonald is, himself, a big Beatle fan who is thankful for their existence and astutely aware of their importance.

If that doesn't tell you enough, let me just end this by saying that I was sorry when I was done reading. It's been quite a few years since MacDonald wrote Revolution In The Head and there have been more perspectives on The Beatles written since then (Gould's being of the very best). I'd have loved to read an updated book by MacDonald.

“Turn off your mind and float downstream…” are the words beginning the Beatles song Tomorrow Never Knows, on the album Revolver. The following is a review of 6 fairly recent books centered on these 7 words and the music that accompanies them. They are, listed from wide to narrow focus:

How to Change Your Mind: What the New Science of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, and Transcendence by Michael Pollan, Penguin Press, 2018

The Gospel According to the Beatles by Steve Turner, Westminster John Knox Press, 2006

Revolution in the Head: The Beatles Records and the Sixties, 3rd ed. by Ian MacDonald, Chicago Review Press, 2007

Tomorrow Never Knows: Rock and Psychedelics in the 1960s by Nick Bromell, University of Chicago Press, 2000

Rock: The Primary Text: Developing a Musicology of Rock, 2nd ed. by Allan F. Moore, Ashgate Publishing Company, 2001

The Beatles: Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band by Allan F. Moore, Cambridge University Press, 1997

________________________________________________________

I will provide a brief bio of your reviewer so you can see where I’m coming from (and maybe where I’m going to):

I first heard Tomorrow Never Knows at age 12 in 1974, when my uncle had given me Rubber Soul and Revolver to add to my burgeoning private record collection. When the Beatles hit America, I was 2 years old, had young hip parents who always had pop radio on, and even then had absconded with my grandmother’s 5 transistor (proudly displayed) “pocket” radio. It became mine, and even television didn’t supplant the importance of the music I was listening to on the radio.

When my uncle gave me Revolver, I had already possessed the White Album (my dad bought it in 1968 when I was 6, and strangely enough, bought John and Yoko’s Two Virgins LP, as an investment I suppose), Abbey Road, and the 1962-1966, 1967-1970 compilations. But, I had never heard anything like Tomorrow Never Knows, and was endlessly fascinated by the music and then the lyrics which were imploring me to listen to the colors of my dreams. Huh?

Four years later, 1978, age 16, I began a decade long spiritual quest beginning with a query into Christianity I was familiar with through cultural osmosis, compared to the ideas expressed in Tomorrow Never Knows.

For ten years I searched for someone I could trust to give me a psychedelic. My first of four magic mushroom trips started on my 26th birthday. I was intellectually primed for an experience having read books from the Electric Koolaid Acid Test to the Tao of Physics and The Cosmic Code. Digesting what I had just experienced, it was my great fortune to discover on PBS special featuring Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers in “The Power of Myth,” and through him, the psychology of Carl Jung. (Freud had turned me off in college and I hadn’t yet given Jung a chance, silly me.) The rest, as they say, is history.

I’ve been most focused over the years on what now can be called psychedelia. (I had aspired to be like the professor of applied narcotics in the hilarious Rutles movie All You Need Is Cash. “Listen, lookit, very simply…”) In particular, I’m most interested in the years of 1966-1968.

_______________________________________________________

From the outset, one cannot understand, naturally, psychedelia without knowing something about psychedelics in general. A new book, as of this writing, is Michael Pollan’s How to Change Your Mind.

I have long been in the habit of reading the bibliography and index of books, and sometimes notes and references, before even opening up to read the first page. I find it’s a good habit, and Pollan’s bibliography doesn’t disappoint. It alone is worth the price of admission.

He divides the history of psychedelics into two periods: the first ending with the prohibition and disfavor of psychedelics (and hippies in general) in the backlash during the 70s. The second period is the resurgence of psychedelic research, almost all underground initially, that started a few years later.

I am intimately familiar with the texts of the first period, and almost completely ignorant of the second, despite having joined MAPS in the early 80s. (I remember in the early 70s finding a urine soaked box of sugar cubes in our apartment parking lot with the adults present saying it was a dreaded drug. Scary. I had no idea then, but know know, that LSD laced sugar cubes are not yellow, usually.)

Pollan comes to psychedelics from a traditional journalistic/scientific worldview: “My default perspective is that of a philosophical materialist who believes that matter is the fundamental substance of the world and the physical laws should be able to explain everything that happens.” (pg.12)

A mystic or proselytizer (think Timothy Leary) he is not, and it is his generally skeptical approach which should help elucidate the subject for those with an “objective” worldview on the subject of psychedelics. For example, by someone considering only scientifically measurable phenomenon worthy for study or exploration.

A most excellent introduction to psychedelia as a whole.

John Lennon, 1968: “If this scene is (around) in 2012 . . . the masses will be where I am today and I should be as groovy as Jesus by then.” (pg. 1) When I read this quote on the first chapter of The Gospel According to the Beatles, I thought to myself, oh this should be good.

Having already scanned the sources at the back of the book, I knew that the author, music journalist Steve Turner, had many interviews he personally had about religion with the major characters involved, including John Lennon in 1969 and a whole host of people who were there.

Add in a deft analysis from a Christian author, as he defines himself, and you get an insight into the Beatles particular brand of spirituality as it developed through the years. He writes: “In what follows I won’t be endorsing everything they said. I will simply be arguing that they had things to say and that these things were taken seriously at the time by a large proportion of young people, many of whom are still affected by those views.” (pg. 11) Indeed.

And yet, Turner only mentions Tomorrow Never Knows specifically and in passing only 3 times. For me, this leaves much to be desired. Read on:

Next comes Revolution in the Head by Ian MacDonald. One of those most cited books in the Beatles canon, and for good reason. (The first edition came out in 1994.) A book that analyses each song, and also has a very good introduction (an essay really) which begins with a quote by Aaron Copland: “If you want to know about the Sixties, play the music of the Beatles.” (pg.1)

In his essay, MacDonald, a British music critic, places the Beatles’ spirituality (expressed via their songs) in a broader sociological context. He writes in 1997, “the destabilizing social and psychological evolution witnessed since the Sixties stems chiefly from the success of affluence and technology in realizing the desires of ordinary people. The countercultural elements usually blamed for this were in fact resisting an endemic process of disintegration with its roots in scientific materialism.” (pg. 36) And, “The Sixties seem like a golden age to us because, relative to now, they were.”

On the plus side, for my purposes, MacDonald devotes 8 pages to the Tomorrow Never Knows track. In it, he discusses the recording process (in much less detail than Mark Lewisohn’s book) and also a bit of musicology (but less than Allan F. Moore, see below). His best observation is, “... yet it is easy, thirty years later, to underestimate its original cultural impact.” (pg. 191) Indeed yes.

But MacDonald has an exceedingly dim view of psychedelic drug use, calling it “Russian roulette played with one’s mind” (pg.186) To each their own opinion, I say. In support of his argument, he cites several times that his source of the effects of LSD on Lennon’s life is Albert Grossman’s biography of John. (I decline to comment here.)

Such opinions are why I started this review with Michael Pollan’s book. The truth of the matter is much more nuanced than MacDonald or Grossman’s account.

It’s true that there were so-called “acid-casualties” like Syd Barrett and Peter Green, they being two famous examples. Both, however, suffered from schizophrenia, which can be triggered by psychedelic use. Says David Gilmour (from Wikipedia): “In my opinion, (Syd’s) nervous breakdown would have happened anyway. It was a deep-rooted thing. But I'll say the psychedelic experience might well have acted as a catalyst. Still, I just don't think he could deal with the vision of success and all the things that went with it."

Clearly, we will have to go somewhere else to get perhaps a more balanced view:

In the introduction to his wonderfully titled (in my opinion, anyway) book Tomorrow Never Knows, a professor of history, English, and American Literature, Nick Bromell, states: “This book isn’t conventional history or cultural studies or popular culture analysis or musicology or memoir, but a hybrid of all of these.” (pg. 6) Now we’re talking! A short but packed book, I wish I could have read it long ago. Impossible to describe in fewer words than the text itself, so I shan’t even try.

After noting (and agreeing) that many critics regard Tomorrow Never Knows as the most important rock song of the decade, Bromell takes that as just the starting point in his discussion. I myself have had over the years a rotating list of favorite Beatle songs (Strawberry Fields, A Day in the Life, I am the Walrus, Dear Prudence) but Tomorrow Never Knows was the most influential in my life.

Bromwell writes: “Yet we must also remember that to the millions of young persons who, innocent of Leary and LSD, eagerly unwrapped the new Beatles album and sat back to see where it would take them, Tomorrow Never Knows was an enigma they would understand only gradually, through many listening and over many months.” Or years, in my case. “They heard it first and foremost as a place to dwell, not as an answer or a deliverance.” (pg. 93)

Need I say more? A most excellent read and a wonderful book to create more avenues for exploration. (For example, he references Heidegger in his explanation of the song’s significance. I did not know that. Off to Wikipedia I go…)

As mentioned in his introduction, Bromell includes the discipline of musicology in his analysis. For those who are very interested in this topic, I recommend two books by musicologist Allan F. Moore.

Rock: The Primary Text is a great introduction to a serious analysis of rock music. Although there were exceptions (like Twilight of the Gods by Wilfred Mellers), there was precious little analysis of rock music in academia for a long time. Presumably, many scholars didn’t think there was much to this simple rhythmic (at least at the beginning) music of the unwashed masses, made up of people like me. Such attitudes are hopefully not as strong these days.

Moore stresses the sounds of rock music. He writes in his introduction, “We can, however, evolve an understanding of what ‘rock’ is, in musical terms, by treating it as structured by multiple-evolving but coherent set of rules and practices.” (pg. 7) If this sounds at all interesting, this book is for you.

Moore also wrote The Beatles: Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, which begins, quite rightly, with Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane (the finest single ever made, so says I) and then onto Sgt. Pepper proper. A bit denser than than the book above, but much shorter, I personally understood only some of it. (I did take music theory in college, but the class didn’t speak to me. The academy didn’t seem to care about the music I was interested in.)

_______________________________________________________________

“Trust your divinity, trust your brain, trust your companions. Whenever in doubt, turn off your mind, relax, float downstream.” - The Psychedelic Experience (pg. 6) by Timothy Leary, Richard Alpert, and Ralph Metzner, University Books, 1964

In one of those rare moments of synchronicity (aka meaningful coincidences), as I was writing this review I learned that Ralph Metzner had recently died, and, further, that I unknowingly was a neighbor of his for the past 20 years, in a small hamlet called Sonoma, California, in wine country. Small world, huh?

Best Wishes for his family.

- March 2019

The Beatles are their own cottage industry. In fact, they're more than a cottage industry. They are the most popular and influential band of all time, bar none 'whether you agree or not' and countless books have been written about them.

Revolution in the Head is one of the few Beatles books that is considered essential by all. You will learn something new everytime you read it. I have read it a dozen times, and it never fails. I own over 100 Beatles books and biographies and I learned more from this book than any other. In fact, this is without question my favorite music book ever. And for me, that is saying something.

RITH examamines the career of The Beatles through the individual songs, and therefore devotes space to every single song written or performed by The Beatles. Some songs get multiple pages, some songs hardly get a paragraph. MacDonald's assessments are sometimes harsh in the eyes of some, but he stands by his opinions, and even if you don't agree with all of them, you will want to revisit the catalogue and you will learn something. Even the introduction is stellar and should be required reading.

This book has garnered some controversy in The Beatles community for some of its opinions and its highbrow style. Do not let these factors deter you. This book is controversial, but brilliant. Read it!

If you are interested in The Beatles, music in general or even culture in general, this book is a masterpiece.

The author does what a critic should do: pull back the curtain and switch on the floodlights, and illuminate the subject with forceful insights and opinions, backed up by research, technical expertise, musical talent, and insider knowledge. And with a subject as huge and important as The Beatles, this means being judgmental about not only the art, but the sociological context in which the entire phenomenon took place--from Beatlemania to The Dream is Over...

To those who don't like McDonald's strong opinions, I say you totally miss the point. Who else could glorify a song like Come Together while at the same time asserting that its self-absorbed, navel-gazing lyrical gobbledygook heralded the Decline of Western Civilization? But that was Lennon. Those were The Times. And this is The Book.

I disagree with maybe 75 percent of the late Ian MacDonald's judgments. Songs he finds trite I think are masterpieces. Songs that for him form a critical part of the Beatles' work -- I'm looking at you, Ticket to Ride -- leave me saying "Huh?" And yet every single analysis has something that will make you think and, unless your last name is Martin, will tell you something you didn't know. Isn't that a fair price to pay even if your favorite song or favorite Beatle doesn't come off the way you think it or he should?

This book will bear multiple readings. Now that I've finished it as a stand-alone product, I want to go back and read it again while listening to the songs (you'll need the Anthology set to do it full justice). It's that good. MacDonald's examination of the first 12 bars of I Want To Hold Your Hand will thrill you, I guarantee it. And I am sure that, even though I was a part of Beatlemania and have been listening to these songs for, gulp, 50 years, I will hear even more new stuff thanks to this superb book. RIP Mr. MacDonald. Your work is greatly appreciated and I hope this review will draw more readers to possibly the best book on popular music I've ever read.

This is an indispensable book about Beatles music appreciation. MacDonald was one of the most idiosyncratic critics of music that ever lived. This book must be owned by anyone, especially musicians and songwriters, who wants to truly get to the heart of the music of the Beatles.

The only disappointment for me (and for anyone who's been faithfully buying and reading the updates of this book since its release in the mid-1990s) is that the 3rd edition is NOT REVISED. If you own the second edition, you do not need to buy this book. There is not one difference in the text.

Oddly enough, this edition has slightly better quality paper, for some reason, whereas the previous edition uses sort of newspaper/telephone book quality sheets that tear easily. Two other subtle changes are: a different pic on the front cover, and the omission of one of the members of Oasis' profanely worded endorsement of the book.

Happy reading if you've never been inside the book before, but if you have the 2nd revised edition, you can sit this one out.

From the description you might think this is a dry as dust musical analysis of the songwriting output of the Beatles but I found it to be anything but. Yes, the important musical analysis (key exposure, background to composition and arrangement details) is all there but the text is sprinkled with anecdotes and footnotes, all of which make this a thoroughly entertaining read.

The background to each song is given, based on evidence drawn from biographical and autobiographical writings as well as the author's notes on the musical, moral and political scene for the years in question, and ideas given for the inspiration for both the music and the lyrics as well as how they came together. This helps put each song in context, both with the Beatles development and what was happening at the time of both composition and release. The footnotes also draw comparison with other notable songwriters of the period and how they, wittingly or unwittingly, influenced and were themselves influenced by the Beatles output.

I was particularly entranced by the author's analysis of Ringo's drumming and how his unique technique helped evolve the Beatles' sound and texture. If you've ever wondered why Ringo is considered one of the best pop/rock drummers, you'll discover why as you go through the book.

Naturally the author has particular favourites when it comes to both songs and composers - this wouldn't be such an entertaining read if it was totally dispassionate. However much of this is tempered by careful consideration of the popularity of songs which are marked down for their comparative simplicity. For instance the author is quite disparaging about much of the content of 'Magical Mystery Tour' (in comparison to the high note set by the majority of 'Sgt Pepper') but readily accedes that it was well accepted by fans as well as showing that 'I am the Walrus' is much, much more than just a 'nonsense' song and he, quite rightly, places it as one of Lennon's best.

So, while you may not always agree with the author's preferences for certain songs, everything in this book will make you want to listen to all the Beatles collection again and again, armed with an analysis of each inflection of composition, instrumentation, arrangement and engineering. A fabulous companion to the Beatles music and one I wouldn't be without.

Finally a classic beatlesque read that is essential to understand the background and influences of that special magical soul of Beatlemusik. A must read for all lovers of those four "primitive rock musicians" who at the time could neither read nor write musical notation - but who nonetheless touched greatness by 1970 with a musical canon yet to be surpassed in popular music. They changed the world for the better - song by song. A great well-written book indeed. "ALLTOGETHERNOW" !

Each song recorded by the Beatles is analysed in dept not only from a musical point of view.

Highly recommended for Beatles fans.

This was the question that prompted me to update my dog-eared and yellowed first edition. That one has 387 pages, the new one has 515, and the new content made the purchase totally worth it. Arrived quickly and in good condition. One little thing, the cover says Third Edition but everything inside referd to th Second Edition with no mention of a tird anywhere. Not that it matters. Great book, looking forward to reading it a thousand more times!

Thorough, dry and brilliantly researched this is the only Beatles book you need if all you care about is the music.