Rethinking the White Album

One of the most enduring discussions in rock and roll history has revolved around the Beatles 1968 eponymous 1968 album (often referred to as the White Album). The discussion concerns a comment made by Beatles producer George Martin that the White Album should have been a single disc instead of the two that were released. Since then Beatles fans have argued whether Martin was right or not. Certainly Martin's thoughts deserve consideration; he was an immense part of the Beatles music, more so than many people give him credit for. He perfected the right balance between formal musical discipline and creative freedom that is vital for the creation of quality music (please take note music industry and especially musicians). The kicker of a statement such as Martin's is the automatic reply that comes from most people: "Well, which songs would you take out, they are all quite good."
That is an interesting question, but it is also a very problematic one. There is an implication thatby suggesting that some songs be removed you automatically consider the songs to be inferior to the ones included or just bad or perhaps devoid of artistic insight. This may be true for individual songs but I reject the implication that it applies to all the songs. An album of music is a work of art in and of itself (the Beatles were in fact integral to the development of the album as such.) and therefore songs must be added or rejected on the basis of whether they add or distract from the album as a whole and whether they can relate and stand coherently with all other songs in the album. Even if a song is better then all the others doesn't necessarily mean it should be included on an album with all the others. The unity of the album can be based on a variety of aspects including lyrical or musical themes, but a good album depends on the individual songs being more then the sum of their parts, each song improving and relating to the others in such a way as to enhance the listening experience of the entity. The White Album is not this, it is a chaotic mess (a glorious one perhaps, but a chaotic mess nonetheless). Songs and music zip by at lightening pace in a plethora of styles and substance ranging from the serious musings of Lennon to the musical explorations of McCartney to the emerging voices of Harrison and Starr. Yet for all its messiness it remains a compelling and wonderful listen, obviously if the Beatles are doing something right, even if they aren't making an album per se.
The solution to this dilemma is perhaps to get away from the idea that the White Album is in fact an album, but rather a compilation, a group of songs put together based on some generic similarity but not actually assembled to be a unified whole. The White Album has a feel more akin to Past Masters or 1967-1970 then it does to Abbey Road or Sgt. Peppers. It should really be listened to as The Beatles Musical Explorations of 1968 then a coherent and carefully constructed album.
By classifying the White Album as a compilation rather than an album it relieves it from having to perform within the rigid standards that an album naturally requires. It's double record length is no longer and impediment because the songs are no longer being portrayed as a coherent statement; it's various musical styles and voices don't have to harmoniously blend but rather can be taken as individual statements to be digested separately. Even the short partial songs and forays into silliness can be seen as part of the musical exploration process. The White Album's beauty is that it offers an in depth look at the making of a Beatles album (or any good rock album for that matter) as small snatches of words and melodies are developed and built upon until they reach their proper finished states.