Greatest Album in Rock History...

[nobody]

I prefer Off The Wall to Thriller.

No, never sent me the remedial Beatles. But trust me, my lack of appreciation is not due to lack of hearing them.

Kinda like Journey.

[emesbee]

Thanks, but any Beatles comp for me would be heavy on early songs. I think they should have stuck to the suits...very sharp. I have always found the White Album and Abbey Road particularly annoying. Sgt. Peppers and Magical Mystery Tour not far behind.

Nah, it was when they got rid of the suits that they got really interesting. Revolver, Sgt Peppers and Magical Mystery Tour was when they were at their best. The White Album was a bit of a mish-mash, consisting of a lot of songs thrown together, but still has a lot of great material. Abbey Road was actually the last album they recorded, but not the last they released, which was Let It Be. Apparently they became dissatisfied with Let It Be while they were recording it, so shelved it and did Abbey Road. They only released Let It Be later.

[MindGoneHaywire]

No way, daddy-o.

I'm only doing this because Finch thinks I think I'm cool.

I should have put this up against Dark Side Of The Moon sooner, but...

[nobody]

We gonna move out of the strictly rock world, and I'm gonna nominate Marvin Gaye: Whats Going On.

Too late on hijacking concerns...this place is trashed already.

[BradH]

Too late on hijacking concerns...this place is trashed already.

It's Finch's fault for nominating Journey.

Yeah.

[nobody]

I would blame myself...but it was totally not my fault.

[BradH]

I should have put this up against Dark Side Of The Moon sooner, but...

Okay, I'm not saying that's not rock but you look at that cover and you just know drugs got a lot better after that.

[nobody]

Oh...we wanna rock...

[MindGoneHaywire]

Is that what explains Wilco & Porpushead?

[nobody]

What did the Deadhead say when the acid wore off?



Damn, this music sucks.

[BradH]

Is that what explains Wilco & Porpushead?

Ya darn tootin'.

DSotM too.

Dadgummit.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Elitist.

[BradH]

Elitist.

Not so much. The goal has always been to do something new to stand out from the crowd.

I can just see Roy Orbison in West Texas saying, "Hey, I'll do the same thing that's always been done. It'll be awesome!"

He had sideburns.

[emesbee]

Not so much. The goal has always been to do something new to stand out from the crowd.

I can just see Roy Orbison in West Texas saying, "Hey, I'll do the same thing that's always been done. It'll be awesome!"

He had sideburns.

The only problem is that if everybody tries to stand out from the crowd, they become the crowd.

[BradH]

The only problem is that if everybody tries to stand out from the crowd, they become the crowd.

It never works that way because most artists suck. Only a few can make innovation actually work. Once everyone sees how it's done they follow. Then followers follow those followers, etc. until you end up with Journey.

Oh...I see what you're saying.

The way I see it, true innovation in pop culture moves around. In the 30's it was the movies, in the 60's it was in rock, now it's in videogames, eventually it will move again. That might be bs but I'm sayin' it anyway.

I gotta run before Finch gets here and I don't have time to erase all the Jerny references.

[MindGoneHaywire]

[bobsticks]

. And please people, stop with this "I appreciate how significant they were" crap. If you don't understand how good they were as just four guys with musical instruments then you won't really understand why they were influential.

I don't know that I agree with that sentiment, Brad. It seems to me perfectly reasonable to say that I appreciate their contributions out of a show of respect...respect for the influence they held over legions of fans and artists alike, respect for obvious talent, and an observance of their artistic growth.

I can appreciate all those things and still not particularly care for the music that resulted from them picking up instruments and playing.

[BradH]

I can appreciate all those things and still not particularly care for the music that resulted from them picking up instruments and playing.

But it's sort of damning with faint praise. "She's not attractive but has a great personality." A lot of people who don't like the Beatles feel the need to comment negatively or positively on the influence they had or huge bs cultural baggage surrounding that band. I don't know how anyone can comment positively on their legacy while not liking their music, it just totally escapes me. If I didn't like someone then I would prefer they had no influence and failing that, I say they suck and move on. The thing I'm getting at is the music is what matters and I'm tired of non-fans saying, "They certainly were a phenomenon" or whatever like they can understand it while, in reality, they don't know why they were a phenomenon, like it was a fluke of marketing or something.

I don't know if that made sense or not.

[MindGoneHaywire]

I'm easily amused. Swish already posted the St. Sanders clips, and that was the funniest thing I saw the whole summer. This slays me.

[MindGoneHaywire]

See...once I get started...

[bobsticks]

I don't know if that made sense or not.

Kinda sorta.

I have an analogy based on sports dynasties and 16 year-old girls wearing player jerseys but it's not really that entertaining or worth the effort...except in as far as that I'm not a 16 year-old girl but as both a musician and a fan of music I can recognise that in a chronological sense what they played was both revolutionary and evolutionary...and I still don't like the tonal q....they influenced alot of futur....nevemind.

Let's just agree that Finch must be stopped.

[MindGoneHaywire]

I like to say that what they did, and what is not easily understood, is that they made complex music that sounded simple, to go along with some simple music that sounded simple.

One of the bugaboos about rock, blues, and pop, is that there's simple music that sounds simple, especially "the blues"...and complex music that sounds complex, ala garden variety prog. The art of making complex music sound simple is deceptive & something that does tend to go over a lot of people's heads. But though I have repeated this like a mantra on this board over the course of several years, I believe it's key to understanding why they could influence later artists in so many areas of the general genres as they were known prior to the splintering that inevitably resulted in the niche pop culture that we have today. I do think that the Beach Boys were the best ever, I should say Brian Wilson, at making complex music that sounded simple as hell. Naturally, prog music is complex music that sounds complex; listen to, say, Muddy Waters, and you get a sense of limitation, as far as instrumental ability. Of course, that was all that band needed to get those songs across. Prog bands--say ELP--they wrote to showcase their ability, and they got every last note, every last part, every last iota of musicality they could squeeze out of what they did. The Beatles were, for better or worse, the first pop act to be taken seriously by musicologists & established figures such as Leopold Stokowski & Leonard Bernstein, who ruffled some feathers by embracing pop music. There's a rather pedantic deconstruction of their music, song-by-song, utilizing theory & charts that shows just what they were doing & how most of it was considered advanced relative to the other pop music of the day. (Aolian cadences & whatnot as written up by the 'serious' music critic at the Times in 1963)

I can link it if you want. It's trivial in a way, yet it makes sense. The Beach Boys were the Beatles' only real competition, and we all know how that turned out for Brian Wilson. The Rolling Stones chased their tail, but the period where they really started firing on all cylinders was still before Brian Jones was gone & the Beatles were pretty much over by that time. But even when they had Beggar's Banquet, arguably the start of their greatest run, they were upstaged at their own listening party when Paul McCartney brought the single for Hey Jude. Point being, unlike all the rock bands that came just afterward...the Beatles experimented, rocked, wrote ballads, used exotic instruments, had killer vocal harmonies, solos that fit the songs they were only there to enhance...and they did all this while maintaining an x-factor that, for the most part, the "rock" bands that came afterward didn't have. One of the most important requirements for success in the music industry: they never stopped being able to make HITS even while they had pretty much full artistic control & experimented all day long while all the record companies wanted out of other outfits was...hits. But everybody wanted to experiment, which was great, but hits? As a general rule...no. When the album became the standard for the industry, there developed a void among 'rock' acts to deliver hit singles. It wasn't what the Who or Zeppelin or Pink Floyd were shooting for (or Beefheart, Zappa, or the Velvet Underground, for that matter). It became all about the album. Which is fine, except it was a business built on 45s. And the Beatles still delivered even as that model underwent a huge shift in a period of less than 5 years.

So it's always seemed to me that those not exactly impressed yet willing to acknowledge legacy can't hurt themselves by seeing that there's a legitimate reason to investigate furrther, to listen again, in spite of that you've hit a brick wall in the past. I don't quarrel with your position as much as Brad, because I believe it to be sincere; but it's just kind of difficult to put into words what jumps out at us from the music. I think we probably listen with a bias because we do measure it against what was around at the time the stuff was released & it shows just how ahead of their time they were. Of course, most bands who are ahead of their time are relegated to cult status. The Beatles are probably the best example of a band who were not only ahead of their time, but incredibly successful in spite of that. Sure, Elvis was, too, and Sinatra, etc, but they were more performers than creators & mostly didn't write their music. The BBs? Absolutely, except they were too dysfunctional at a key time to avoid not being to able to roll with major changes that were going to be difficult for them to navigate.

I was talking to Sport Murphy tonight about this. I say that if SMiLE had come out on time, he thought it would be a worse flop than Pet Sounds was, but I think they would've toured that record, someone would've wanted to go along who would've seen the brilliance & wanted to be a part of the experience of bringing that to the public. Which means that Sgt. Pepper might well have been very different. This is all fantasy, almost pointless speculation. But you know what? If they hadn't canceled Monterey, who's to say otherwise?

But what happened, happened...yet the Beatles never fell out of vogue. Even though they tried hard with Magical Mystery Tour. But, heck. You put I Am The Walrus on an ep & you just can't be written off. Mount Vernon & Fairway, it wasn't.

Bottom line, I don't have the chip Brad is laying on this thread. I understand it, but if you tell me you're sincere, that's fine. However...if there's a band that's worth listening to with a different perspective, it's the Beatles. It's one of those things where the rep is well-deserved enough to not embrace the anti- side just because it feels right 'cause it ain't doing it for you.

I think Wanda Jackson is going into the rock and roll hall of fame. About friggin' time.

[kexodusc]

And please people, stop with this "I appreciate how significant they were" crap. If you don't understand how good they were as just four guys with musical instruments then you won't really understand why they were influential.

Sorry that doesn't fly here. I never once said I dislike the band, clearly stated I listen to them now and then, but I'm not a huge fan, they wouldn't make any desert island lists of mine, and get considerably lower playtime than a lot of other acts from that generation. But every now and then I pop them in.

I don't have to have a school-girl crush on the band to recognize that dozens of musicians I am crazy about really dug these guys. Objectively I can study their music, look at what was out there at the time, what's been done since, and put two and two together. Subjectively, I'm at a disadvantage because I can compare them to exponentially greater alternatives than people exposed to them in the 60's, 70, or 80's. By the time I got to them, the bar had been raised so much that their music didn't generate the same response in me that it otherwise might have had I lived through it. How much do I have to like them before I pass your test of "understand how good they were"?

Would you similarly pan someone who stated they didn't care for Beethoven but recognize the impact his works had on music? I would suggest you don't have to have the emotional involvement of "getting" the music or even liking the music to see that others do and respect that it is relevant. Especially in the case of the Beatles where there's so much evidence, and the mere fact they're still legends almost 50 years later...

Bottom line, I don't have the chip Brad is laying on this thread. I understand it, but if you tell me you're sincere, that's fine. However...if there's a band that's worth listening to with a different perspective, it's the Beatles. It's one of those things where the rep is well-deserved enough to not embrace the anti- side just because it feels right 'cause it ain't doing it for you.

I think Wanda Jackson is going into the rock and roll hall of fame. About friggin' time.

A much fairer assessment (and a very interesting post) Though again...just because the Beatles aren't in your top 10 favs doesn't mean you're anti-Beatles. I'd sooner listen to the Beatles than the Rolling Stones, for example.

The two positions aren't mutually-exclusive.

[nobody]

I prefer Wanda to the Beatles.

She is a Fujiyama Mama after all.

[BradH]

Subjectively, I'm at a disadvantage because I can compare them to exponentially greater alternatives than people exposed to them in the 60's, 70, or 80's.

Whether the alternatives are "exponentially greater" is a highly debatable can of worms. I would argue that they are not. That's probably because I put a high premium on innovation, possibly too much, and nobody, nobody, pulled ahead of the crowd in their time farther than the Beatles. There's not even a close second. But you bring up a great point about subjectively listening to music within its timeframe. It's an extremely difficult thing to do for someone coming along later. It doesn't come naturally to go back and listen to, say, older jazz and automatically understand who was really good, who were the innovators and who were the followers. In fact, by the early 70s, the Beatles were considered old-hat for the vast majority of teenagers who were wowed by Alice Cooper or Black Sabbath.

By the time I got to them, the bar had been raised so much that their music didn't generate the same response in me that it otherwise might have had I lived through it. How much do I have to like them before I pass your test of "understand how good they were".

Judging from that statement, I would say you would have to realize the bar had not been raised at all.

Would you similarly pan someone who stated they didn't care for Beethoven but recognize the impact his works had on music?

No. I listen to classical music and, in fact, that's exactly my situation with Beethoven. I recognize and acknowledge the impact but I don't understand it because I don't understand his music. See the difference? It's not just a matter of semantics. Half the problem is realizing that something is great, in part, because it simply didn't exist before it existed. It's tough to get the full artistic and emotional impact of something when it was new by looking backwards through history and comparing it to a newer guitarist who used more distortion or a newer drummer who played faster or whatever. I see people do that all the time and they miss the point.

The thing is, Beethoven doesn't have a ton of cultural baggage surrounding his legacy and the Beatles do, so I'm always disappointed and a little suspicious when people feel they have to acknowledge the legacy even though they don't like the music.