Revolution was the B-side of the Beatles’ Hey Jude single, written by John Lennon, released in August 1968. A different version of the song, Revolution 1, was included as a track on the White Album. Revolution 1 was the first version to be recorded, but the single was released before the album. Revolution 9, which also appears on the album, developed as a sinister and chaotic sound collage based on an extended coda of Revolution 1.
The Beatles Bible‘Revolution’ was John Lennon’s response to the popular calls for uprising in the US and Europe. It was a revision of a version already recorded for the White Album, and became the b-side of the ‘Hey Jude’ single.
Continue reading on Beatles Bible →
WikipediaThe most striking differences between Revolution 1 and the single version of the song are the tempo and the tone. Revolution 1 is a very laid back blues shuffle (98 BPM) with soft backing vocals and horns, whereas Revolution is much faster (121 BPM) and much more raucous, with its signature distorted electric guitar; the distinctive introduction sounds like a motorcycle revving up for a race. These musical features give the single version an energized, angry, rebellious feeling; you could almost be forgiven for thinking the song was actively advocating revolution. In contrast, the lazy relaxed groove of the album version is more aligned with the lyrics which are, although nuanced, fundamentally opposed to violence and destruction.
Distorted guitar came to play an important part in rock, heavy rock, punk and indie, so its conceivable the Beatles relatively early adoption of the sound in Revolution (and other songs such as Helter Skelter, for example) played a part in these later developments. Of course (usually mild) distortion had featured in some blues and rock and roll records from the 50s onwards, and by 1968 many other guitarists had been experimenting with more heavily distorted sounds, notably Jimi Hendrix. Still I think you can hear echoes of the Revolution for example in the Sex Pistols’ Anarchy In The UK, where it fulfils a similar function.
Revolution was, if not a turning point, then a significant step in Lennon’s writing. His early songs had been about relationships and dealt with archetypal boys and girls falling in love, or at least lusting after one another. Later, in the period between 1964 and 1966, he developed a more introspective approach which he would retain throughout his life, with songs that dealt more directly with his own life, emotions and experiences, including negative and self-critical feelings. Coinciding roughly with the beginning of his relationship with Yoko Ono, Lennon also began to write songs that were concerned with broader social, philosophical and political themes – about what he perceived was wrong with the world or how the it could be put right. It seems likely that Yoko was a big influence in encouraging Lennon to develop this strand in parallel with their anti-war activism. The idea that art could be disruptive and challenging resonated strongly with Lennon and this resonance seems to have been close to the core of their relationship from the outset.
Although Yoko’s influence is clear, George Harrison had also played a role in developing this direction, even before Ono and Lennon came together; in 1966 his Taxman had been the first Beatles song to address an overtly political topic, but more importantly his enthusiasm for Indian music had connected the Beatles to its spiritual and philosophical underpinnings, with songs like Within You, Without You. Lennon’s All You Need Is Love followed from this trajectory; although it can’t be described as a political song, it is expresses a sort of humanist idealism that was to become a feature of many of his later songs, including Revolution.
Lennon was increasingly frustrated that the Beatles had been pigeon-holed (or marketed) as light entertainment. The Beatles were being seen as leaders of their generation, but had been largely silent about the political direction of the counterculture and indeed had flirted with the British Establishment (for example receiving MBEs and appearing at the Royal Variety Performance). Lennon felt that they had been muzzled. He had decided that it was time to speak out politically.
I wanted to put out what I felt about revolution. I thought it was time we fucking spoke about it, the same as I thought it was about time we stopped not answering about the Vietnamese war when we were on tour with Brian Epstein and had to tell him, ‘We’re going to talk about the war this time, and we’re not going to just waffle.’ I wanted to say what I thought about revolution.
I had been thinking about it up in the hills in India. I still had this ‘God will save us’ feeling about it, that it’s going to be all right. That’s why I did it: I wanted to talk, I wanted to say my piece about revolution. I wanted to tell you, or whoever listens, to communicate, to say ‘What do you say? This is what I say.’
Lennon was driven to say something, but what?
He was outspoken by nature, but his political beliefs, however strongly and coherently they might be expressed at any given moment, were always changing as he encountered new influences and rejected old ones. He may have been rather conflicted having had a bookish but conservative upbringing and a strongly antagonistic side to his character. He had a lot of anger and always wanted to kick against something, but he also craved stability and peace of mind.
The lyrics of Revolution bear the traces of these conflicting drives – the song argues in favour of change but against violent revolution. To understand the thought that were driving him at the time he wrote the song, it’s interesting to read this article from johnlennon.com which includes interviews from late 1968, after Lennon had been criticised for the perceived complacency of the lyric by some on the radical left:
Musically, ‘Revolution’ was superb – Lennon at his best – but the lyrics were a bitter disappointment. Instead of identifying with the rebellious ferment among the young, he was hostile to it. He complained about “minds that hate”. He said, “When you talk about destruction, don’t you know that you can count me out.” Above all, he said: “You tell me it’s the institution, you better free your mind instead.”
Those sentiments might have fitted the previous year and the dreamy mind expansions of the “Summer of Love”, but things had moved on and they now seemed entirely off the mark. (John Hoyland, Guardian, 2008)
Hoyland had written an open letter to Lennon in the pages of a new radical magazine, Black Dwarf (for context, Lennon and Ono had just been arrested for a drugs offence):
I hope this experience will help you understand certain things that you seemed a bit blind to before. (That sounds patronising but I can’t think of how else to put it…)
Above all: perhaps now you’ll see what it is you’re (we’re) up against. Not nasty people Not even neurosis, or spiritual undernourishment. What we’re confronted with is a repressive, vicious, authoritarian system.
Now do you see what was wrong with your record “Revolution”? That record was no more revolutionary than Mrs. Dale’s Diary. In order to change the world we’ve got to understand what’s wrong with the world. And then – destroy it. Ruthlessly. (John Hoyland, Black Dwarf, October 1968)
This attack clearly stung Lennon, and he was not someone to take criticism lying down, so he wrote back:
Your letter didn’t sound patronising – it was. Who do you think you are? What do you think you know? I’m not only up against the establishment but you, too, it seems. I know what I’m up against – narrow minds – rich/poor. All your relationships may be poisoned – it depends how you look at it. What kind of system do you propose and who would run it?
I don’t remember saying ‘Revolution’ was revolutionary – fuck Mrs Dale. Listen to all three versions (Revolution 1, 2 and 9) then try again, dear John. You say, ‘In order to change the world we’ve got to understand what’s wrong with the world. And then – destroy it. Ruthlessly.’ You’re obviously on a destruction kick. I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it – People – so do you want to destroy them? Ruthlessly? Until you/we change your/our heads – there’s no chance. Tell me of one successful revolution.
Look man, I was/am not against you. Instead of splitting hairs about the Beatles and the Stones – think a little bigger – look at the world we’re living in, John, and ask yourself: why? And then – come and join us.
Love, John Lennon
PS — You Smash it – and I’ll build around it.
(John Lennon, replying in Black Dwarf, January 1969)
He says “Revolution” was no more revolutionary than Mrs Dale’s Diary. So it mightn’t have been. But the point is to change your head – it’s no good knocking down a few old bloody Tories! What does he think he’s gonna change? The system’s what he says it is: a load of crap. But just smashing it up isn’t gonna do it.
All the statements I make are in my songs or in the things that I do. You can change people you know, change their heads. I’ve changed a lot of people’s heads and a lot of people have changed my head – just with their records, apart from anything else they do. I believe in change. That’s what Yoko’s and my scene is: to change it like that. (John Lennon interviewed by Maurice Hindle, December 1968)