Remember the Nightman Scoring System ©? My system for reviewing music as fairly as possible, an attempt to remove as much inherent bias as possible? That system where I break up an album into twenty evenly weighted categories so that when you score each one out of five, trying to base the score as much on fact as on opinion, you get a fair total out of 100? It’s the best scoring system in the world and you should use it. So should I in fact, hence this post. Anyway, if you want to read the rules about the system click this link and it will reveal all. There’s one for movies too, at this link. Check them both out – I say with absolutely no hyperbole that it will unquestionably change your life, make you an astonishingly brilliant human being, and also get you the ladies (regardless of your gender or orientation).
Sales: 5. It’s The Beatles, so it’s an automatic 5.
Chart: 4. It didn’t get to Number 1 in the UK or the US, but was Top 5 in both territories.
Critical: 3. Probably the least well-received Beatles album, due in part to the fact that there’s very little original Beatles material on there – the second half consisting of George Martin’s instrumental shenanigans. Even with that, both contemporary and modern reviews are mostly positive.
Originality: 3. It could be said that the bulk of originality is found on Martin’s whimsical soundscapes. The Beatles songs found them also delving into whimsy, their flights of fancy coinciding with increased drug intake and jaded outlook. It’s more of the swirling, effects-laden stylings of their previous couple of albums, without much progression.
Influence: 4. I can’t quite convince myself to go lower than 3, because it’s still The Beatles. It’s not their most influential work, but anyone listening at the time or since likely borrowed something from it.
Musical Ability: 4. Sure.
Lyrics: 4. A more rounded release, with Harrison contributing two of the six Beatles originals. From the nonsense of the title track, to Harrison’s scathing torching of his relationship to the band’s songs, to the sincerity of the closing track, there’s something for everyone.
Melody: 4. On one hand, you have a few of the more meandering, less tuneful Beatles songs on this album. On the other, you have All You Need Is Love and the title track, which have timeless melodies.
Emotion: 3. The overriding feeling I get from this album is that it’s just a bit of faffy, contractual bollocks, coming at a time when the band was writing any old nonsense. Outside of a couple of tracks, there’s not much high emotion.
Resilience/Lastibility: 4. I could easily go 5 here, and maybe I should, but I think it’s the handful of Beatles songs people remember and revisit rather than the album. I don’t know what that means to you, but for me and this category, I must drop a point.
Vocals: 4. It’s all good, and it may even feature Ringo’s best vocal.
Coherence: 4. I could go 3 with this one given it’s an album of two halves, but even with that distinction, it does hold together as this wacky adventure.
Mood: 4. See above.
Production: 5. It’s excellent, including the Martin tracks.
Effort: 3. I’ll go lower here, because there’s only a few new Beatles tracks. Go higher if you feel that the fact they were able to put out anything given their schedule is a miracle.
Relationship: 3. A bit too much of the ‘caught in time, zany 60s’ for me to fully relate to, but a couple of the main tracks remain universal.
Genre Relation: 3. It’s certainly out there for a major band, even as other artists were pushing creative boundaries.
Authenticity: 3. Harrison is trying to get his voice heard, but the other songs feel like they’re ripping the arse out of things.
Personal: 3. Not my favourite Beatles album. If this had been a dual release – soundtrack separate – and if they’d included some of their unreleased tracks from this period, or updated a few of their older unreleased songs with the psychedelic approach, this could have been higher.
Miscellaneous: 4. Great artwork, an associated movie.
Total: 74/100
The Spac Hole 