Well she was just seventeen, if you know what I mean

Starting my trip back through the 1963 album charts.

29/12/63 : Please Please Me - The Beatles

Back to the 60s and boom - we're back with The Beatles. This is our eleventh visit with the lads (taking them level with Madonna) and (I believe) our penultimate one - I'm expecting to find it a bit twee, but very much of historical interest.

Yeah, I can see this being very exciting if you lived in the early 60s, but it doesn't, for me, translate so well to the current day - there's definitely more harmonica than I feel the need for (although I do have to admit that "Love Me Do" is catchy). It was also nice to catch up with "Twist And Shout" for the third time, after having previously had versions from Status Quo and Chaka Demus & Pliers (fortunately I've avoided The Smurfs version, which I can imagine is somewhat challenging). Overall, I'd say this is an interesting first step on their musical careers, so I'm glad I caught up with it - and at 31 minutes for 14 tracks, I can hardly complain it hangs around for too long. It's also interesting how the album cover feels very 60s, but I suspect when we compare it with most of the other album covers we see this year, it's more a case that they were defining the 60s.

We're at #2 in the charts this week on their 40th week of a 67 week run - it spent 30 consecutive weeks at #1 between May and December, so this is unlikely to be the last time we mention it. Interestingly, it spent 54 consecutive weeks in the top 3 but after it dropped out of the charts (which was only a top 20 at this time) it only ever spent three further random weeks in '64 in the charts and that was it until it was re-released in '87 (and then again in '09). The rest of the top five were The Beatles (we actually met the US version of this, but they're close enough), Gerry & The Pacemakers, West Side Story (we've already met the original cast recording, but this is the film soundtrack - a decision will be required as to whether a separate write-up is required) and Frank Ifield, with the highest new entry being Kathy Kirby (#16).

Wikipedia has a relatively small amount for a Beatles album (249 milliPeppers) and it tells us it's their debut, was originally intended to be a live album (the mind boggles) but in the end was done in the studio, but it was still pretty much live with the whole thing being done in a day. There's a load more detail in the entry, but believe me when I say you're absolutely fine not knowing any of it. Upon release, the album was considered unusual because it was "pop" aimed at a younger audience (who mostly bougth singles) and also for the presence of songs written by Paul & John (originally credited as McCartney-Lennon) which wasn't really something that people did at the time.  

There's remarkably little information about the critical response at the time (maybe contemporary reviewers didn't consider pop to be worthy of their attention) but all the legacy reviews agree it's an important album - it's not like they can go "they'll never amount to anything". And, as we've already heard, it did OK commercially here and it also got to #4 in West Germany. It didn't do anything in the US until after they broke the market over there at around this time, after which it was re-released as Introducing...The Beatles in early '64, when it got to #2.

discogs.com is a game of two halves, telling us you can pick up a re-released CD version for as little as three quid, but if you want a mint original mono vinyl with the gold and black label and the Dick James credits (apparently this is a thing), then it's going to set you back £17,500 - I suspect we might already have a winner for the most expensive album of the year. I enjoyed this from a historical context rather than a musical context, although I am intrigued as to why it was one of the few Beatles albums not included on the Rolling Stones list. 

2017 - An intriguing year