Love
by The Beatles
  • Record Label: Capitol
  • Release Date: Nov 21, 2006
User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 200 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 164 out of 200
  2. Mixed: 12 out of 200
  3. Negative: 24 out of 200

Review this album

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. LetzTalkMoveez
    Nov 21, 2012
    5
    These songs are all fantastic classics and yet this album couldn't be more of a chore to get through. Why, might you ask? I still can't even put my finger on it.
  2. WilliamC
    Jan 28, 2007
    5
    It's all about money...repackage the beatles Las Vegas style...tread very lightly...make sure no one is offended...hardly a touch of creativity..."The Beatles on 45"
  3. ArthurR
    Jan 7, 2007
    5
    I heard one of the more radical reworkings on this album in a bookstore, and so I got the album. Had the whole album been just as radical, it would have been worth it. A lot of the songs are really different at all. It's a great idea, and the most radical songs are fun to hear, because the Beatles' songs are so familiar to recognize them in new contexts is fun, but much of the I heard one of the more radical reworkings on this album in a bookstore, and so I got the album. Had the whole album been just as radical, it would have been worth it. A lot of the songs are really different at all. It's a great idea, and the most radical songs are fun to hear, because the Beatles' songs are so familiar to recognize them in new contexts is fun, but much of the album just sounds like the songs were really aggressively remastered, and not changed that much. A great idea, half-botched.… Expand
  4. mattc
    Jul 20, 2007
    5
    I love the Beatles, obviously. I believe their tunes are masterpieces, not to be ever tampered with. But, sadly, this album doesn't prove that wrong. When i was listening to 'Here comes the sun', the Indian drum beat vibe was interesting yes, but the song itself didn't feel the same. Seriously, classics should never EVER be remixed
  5. SYanoff
    Dec 30, 2006
    5
    Beatles music is great, and any refreshing remix is welcome. However, I gave up on this after two listens. I am sure it would have even more appeal given the context of the Cirque de Soleil show it is meant to accmopany. However, this just seemed like more Anthology-based reworkings that really don't warrant a purchase. The mash-ups were creative, but in the end, I'm not Beatles music is great, and any refreshing remix is welcome. However, I gave up on this after two listens. I am sure it would have even more appeal given the context of the Cirque de Soleil show it is meant to accmopany. However, this just seemed like more Anthology-based reworkings that really don't warrant a purchase. The mash-ups were creative, but in the end, I'm not interested in just a new track list of existing Beatles music.… Expand
  6. RH
    Nov 20, 2006
    5
    It's not a bad idea on paper, but the results aren't full of enough cross-cutting and weirdness. It feels like Martin is holding back, allowing for too many numbers that are practically identical to their original counterparts.
  7. EricH
    Nov 21, 2006
    6
    It's a bit disappointing to hear 'Strawberry Fields' mixed with 4 or 5 other songs, then 'A Day in the Life' the album version. There are very creative moments and then there are studio cuts (which I've heard hundreds of times before). A great concept but a little weak on delivery.
  8. ToddW
    Nov 21, 2006
    5
    Because it's the Beatles, I'll meet them halfway. But the whole idea of mishmashing their songs to introduce their music to new generations of potential listeners seems all at once resigned, contrived, desperate, and a bit of yet another money grab from the Fab Four. These guys and their estates already have enough mammon for a jillion lifetimes, so why mess with perfection? If Because it's the Beatles, I'll meet them halfway. But the whole idea of mishmashing their songs to introduce their music to new generations of potential listeners seems all at once resigned, contrived, desperate, and a bit of yet another money grab from the Fab Four. These guys and their estates already have enough mammon for a jillion lifetimes, so why mess with perfection? If there was actually something new in this package, it would be worth spending money on to put under the Christmas tree. But it's like playing musical trivial pursuit with Beatles' songs as the calling cards. Uh, no thanks, but I'll take another glass of wine, please. I've sampled this album, and while it is mildly interesting, not one of the remakes sounds better than the original from which it came. So that leaves me asking: What's the point? Maybe old George Martin is bored living off of his royalties in the English countryside. Oh, what John Lennon, the Beatles' conscience, would think of all of this. We know Yoko, Paul, and Ringo long ago sold their souls to the devil. George would go along to get along, just like the old days. Beatlemaniacs will eat it up, of course. I'll take the main courses that are their original albums.… Expand
  9. JaneyS
    Nov 26, 2006
    5
    I'm sorry, but this is terrible--the Beatles equivalent of a Fifth of Beethoven. It's a freaking medley for a Vegas show, fer crying out loud! Martin does a tasteful job, but he cannot change the purpose of this exercise: to provide condensed, shortened versions of legendary songs as backing music to visual spectacle. Had this truly been done as an artistic endeavor, to I'm sorry, but this is terrible--the Beatles equivalent of a Fifth of Beethoven. It's a freaking medley for a Vegas show, fer crying out loud! Martin does a tasteful job, but he cannot change the purpose of this exercise: to provide condensed, shortened versions of legendary songs as backing music to visual spectacle. Had this truly been done as an artistic endeavor, to reimagine the Beatles catalog, it would have been fascinating. But it isn't that at all. And it was never going to be.… Expand
  10. Roquentin
    Dec 1, 2006
    4
    Think medley, not mash-up. Just one long medley that doesn't really add much to the originals. What's the point, then?
  11. patb
    Mar 16, 2007
    6
    nothing new per se
  12. MarkR
    Jun 26, 2007
    4
    They were a good band. Grow up everybody...

Awards & Rankings

28
#28 Best Album of 2006
18
#18 Most Discussed Album of 2006
21
#21 Most Shared Album of 2006

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
83

Universal acclaim - based on 22 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 22
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 22
  3. Negative: 0 out of 22
  1. Observer Music Monthly
    100
    Love vindicates the Beatles' status as master musicians and conceptualists.
    Read full review
  2. The Guardian
    80
    The question of whether anybody would listen to Love more than once if the original Beatles albums were available in equivalent sound quality is a nice one. But it doesn't seem to matter much when you can almost feel the spit flying from John Lennon's mouth during Revolution, or when A Day in the Life's orchestral swell comes surging from the speakers. After all, it's hard to ask questions when your breath has been taken away.
    Read full review
  3. Entertainment Weekly
    100
    You could figure it as a sop to today's interactive mash-up culture. Or you could say it's just extending the medley-ish, segue-happy ethos of Abbey Road to the band's entire catalog. Really, it's both, and it's bliss.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »