-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-LockBox
You mean the way Sgt Peppers hit you over the head? or Britches Bew? or Led Zeppelin I and II?
If there is a definative album out there that could be called the precursor to prog, then its prolly Sgt Peppers. Which is good. That way, no one has to actually mention an actual prog act. So did any prog albums influence anybody else? They do list one quasi-prog album, but then backhandedly lament its influence on other prog.
Funny that the album The Observer credits as influencing prog is a certain 1973 album that came during prog's peak. They haven't a clue as to what they're talking about when it comes to prog, they just know they don't like it, then they dismiss it.
Prog is pretentious. And glam rock wasn't. Otay!
I guess what bugs me about these lists is that they're almost always biased towards fashion. As in, its always fashionable to discuss the origins of glam or punk rock. Otherwise, where's that ultimately influencial country album? Or disco album? or prog album?
Genesis:Supper's Ready has influenced countless acts worldwide for decades. But, who cares? How 'bout Hank Williams? Well, he didn't really have an album proper, so his first greatest hits comp in 1957 shouldn't count, even though his influence can be detected for decades. What about Saturday Night Fever? It didn't change the face of music? Besides these examples are just niche genre anyway...not like punk and glam rock. None of these albums I mentioned are on the list, by the way. And if you think these were a stretch, wait until you see the rest of the list.
I'll just take this list with the same grain of salt I take with other lists. Its good for conversation, that's for sure. Too bad it wasn't so fashion oriented.
I can't really argue with any of this...not that I'd want to. It makes sense, as far as the laziness of oh-so-clever rock writers who think they're better than others because they know punk was better than prog...some of whom have swallowed this philosophy hook, line, & sinker, without sampling much in the genre.
That said, I'm not much for prog, of course...but while I've long felt I've heard enough of it, I'm not afraid to listen to it. Most of the time it's hardly worth it, for me. But that sort of elitism from rock writers is, frankly, lame. Elitism can be entertaining when you get the sense they've actually listened to the stuff. Lester Bangs made an observation about the 2nd Velvet Underground album: it's cool to have, but it's difficult to imagine the posers who have it just to have it actually listening to the thing. I mean, they recorded that record knowing full well they were overloading the tape, so, while it's an interesting rec, it's hardly a pleasurable listen, so one has to be in the mood for it. And at this point, I get more enjoyment out of giving Dark Side Of the Moon a spin.
I stand by what I had to say about Sgt. Pepper in the week 1 thread: I say Meet The Beatles was more influential. And I agree with Troy that Abbey Road is as close to the mark of what people say Sgt. Pepper was, and did...although arguably only half of it. Nevertheless...at this point I don't see any injustice in saying that Sgt. Pepper just doesn't deserve this placement anymore.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradH
Exactly. With Pepper, The Beatles didn't expand the definition of a pop group, they obliterated it.
And we the masses of record buyers wanted it obliterated... and didn't even realize it at the time. We LIKED songs about cars and girls! But eventually it all came back, only to be recycled and bent out of shape again and again.
I think one of the main things I enjoy the most about rock music is that it changes so drastically with the passing of time (or over the same time with sub-genres) and yet it retains its powerful essence.
|