Week 2: 50 Records That Changed the Face of Music.

[Swish]

Well, the first one started quite an interesting thread, and I can only hope this next choice will have the same results. I'm sure it will please Resident Loser since it's none other than The Beatle's - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967).

There are those who rate Revolver or the White Album higher (I do), but Sgt. Pepper's made the watertight case for pop music as an art form itself; until then, it was thought the silly, transient stuff of teenagers. At a time when all pop music wsa stringently manufactured, theise McCartney-driven melodies and George Martin-produced whorls of sound proved that untried ground was not only the most fertile stuff, but also the most viable commercially. It defined the Sixties and gave white rock all its airs and graces. Without this pop would be a very different beast.

Let the games begin,
Swish

[Stone]

While it certainly isn't in the same league as VU & Nico, I'm sure it influenced a few musicians along the way.

Plus, it's a half-way decent album to listen to, too.

[Resident Loser]

Well, the first one started quite an interesting thread, and I can only hope this next choice will have the same results. I'm sure it will please Resident Loser since it's none other than The Beatle's - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967).

There are those who rate Revolver or the White Album higher (I do), but Sgt. Pepper's made the watertight case for pop music as an art form itself; until then, it was thought the silly, transient stuff of teenagers. At a time when all pop music wsa stringently manufactured, theise McCartney-driven melodies and George Martin-produced whorls of sound proved that untried ground was not only the most fertile stuff, but also the most viable commercially. It defined the Sixties and gave white rock all its airs and graces. Without this pop would be a very different beast.

Let the games begin,
Swish

...I preferred the 'Stones...I did eventually buy Sgt. Pepper (in mono no less) and my fave cut is Good Morning...I like the beat and I like the lyrics...I give it a 95 Dick (is that gonna fall victim to the auto-censor?) a...er, Mr. Clark...

Me, Revolver and Rubber Soul are more...important... musically...but you would have to be an idiot to say Pepper wasn't the touchstone of the era...

I think the the whole British invasion is the real influence. How many people started bands because of it... SPLHCB is just it's apex...

I mean it's not like they re-invented the wheel...there isn't much that hadn't been done before...strings were used in pop...swirly-swirly backward calliope, etc. has it's roots in the previously mentioned musique concrete of the late 40s...Pet Sounds was cited by McCartney as being an influence for certain flavors and textures included in Pepper...like the dog barking...Putting it all together in a somewhat dismissed genre was the big trick...

It may have been influential, but more in other ways than musically I think...I mean the 'Stones had Satanic Majesties Request but other than a few cuts (Citadel and 2000 Man come to mind) it was an also-ran...Most of what Sir Paul did with Pepper just continued to be what Sir Paul does, solo, with Wings, etc...Lennon's post-Beatle work was the antithesis of Sgt. Pepper IMHO...American music was regrouping with Dylan, The Byrds, the Spoonful, CCR and such...I would be remiss not to mention the Mamas and the Papas et al, but now I'll have to clean my keyboard...and R&B was becoming Soul Music and was getting out from under the Goffen/King version of minstrelsy and into it's own...Let's not forget blue-eyed soul...and awful lot of good music competing for the listeners and their dollars...

How many groups would say the album was influential in their music? To my way of thinking there should be influences that one gathers over the course of time and ultimately coalesces into a style or sound unique to themselves...If you cite one group or album that is your influence, you might as well go for a tribute band...or Beatlemania.

jimHJJ(...well, let's run that up the pole and see who shoots off a rocket...)

[3-LockBox]

I'd have to go with Revolver as a more influencial album musically speaking, from the Beatles anyway. But yeah, this is the album that solidified the Beatles as one of the greatest recording rock entities of all time. It also open a pandora's box for what could and shouldn't be done.

It could never be replicated by anyone else, even The Beatles themselves. It has all the excesses of progressive rock that came a few years later, which most proggers point to the this album as the genesis of the progressive rock genre, as well as the psychadelic rock craze it so obviously spawned. At the time Sgt. Peppers sounded so experimental, but nowadays it sounds more like a quintissential 60's pastiche of pop and psychadelia. It also spawned a slew of imitations that fell so terribly short.

It is definately a milestone in pop culture as it redifined what was supposed to be hip in the eyes of corporate America, as well as the media and the buying public. This is the point where the 'hippy look' started to infiltrate fashion (although it was more a mix of psychadelia and roaring '20s). The Beatles appearence upon the release of Sgt Peppers influenced long hair as a viable alternative hairstyle for men. No, The Beatles weren't the first band to sport long hair, but they validated the look. Their appearence on the cover of Sgt Peppers was in stark contrast to the mop-topped look of their last album (which they quite frankly spawned that hair craze as well). The tremendous popularity and validation of the album sales meant that no respectable rock band would be 'clean cut' for years.

Beatle-influenced psychadelia also infiltrated television after the success of Sgt Peppers, most evident in the vareity show genre, where new editing technology lent itself to the over-indulgences of some video mixers, where nearly any pop band's TV appearences were accompanied by swirling, kalaidescope imagery, and zip zoom camera effects, as well as other distractions. This, coupled with poorly performed lipsyncing, is part of TV's most embarissing (and laughable) era.

I love this album, but haven't listened to it in whole for years. Maybe I should whip it out (the CD) and try to wash William Shatner out of my ears.

[nobody]

I gotta toss this one in the bin with those albums that were certainly influential, but which never really did it for me. I think I have an old copy floating around without a cover somewhere, too scratchy to matter that it never gets played.

Thing is, I just never really have been too interested in the concept album thing...the operatic rock thing...the happy little trippy lyrics...strings and things tossed into the mix kinda nature of the whole thing. And, frankly, there's not much I really do like that fits the mold of this one at all. Even Smile, much to J's chagrin I would imagine.

Personally, about the only Beatles stuff I really like is when they wore matching suits and shouted a lot. Parts of revolver still sound pretty good to me...but I'm basically done after that and can't really think off hand of any bands that really sound much like their later stuff that I've really gotten into.

Not just because it’s not to my tastes, but as to lasting affects, I do think a case could possibly be made that the album was more important culturally than musically.

[Swish]

Personally, about the only Beatles stuff I really like is when they wore matching suits and shouted a lot. Parts of revolver still sound pretty good to me...but I'm basically done after that and can't really think off hand of any bands that really sound much like their later stuff that I've really gotten into.

...if not for A Day in the Life, I would not miss too much from this record. Really. The White Album, with Dear Prudence and While My Guitar Gently Weeps, two of my favorite Beatles songs, is likely my favorite, although Revolver is a close second. That's not to say I don't think SPLHCB wasn't influential, which is the whole point of the list.

Swish

[Resident Loser]

...I feel like Art Linkletter hosting "Kid's Say The Darndest Things"...

Prior to '64, men's hairstyles consisted of crew-cuts, flattops and greasy DAs...The term longhair referred to those involved with classical music (think Toscanini) and the occasional nutty professor...

Brian Epstein revamped the lads look from the pompadoured leather jacket-clad Teddy Boy-types into the mop-topped, trendy mod icons introduced to America...By '67 and SPLHCB their hair just got longer, keeping them a step ahead of most of the rest of us...military style and Nehru jackets were in and Edwardian affectations were also beginning.

jimHJJ(...there's more but, time's up for today...)

[superpanavision70mm]

Brian Wilson Says, "that's my favorite album!"

[BradH]

Not much to say that hasn't already been said for years but here are a few random thoughts.

I've got a 2-hour documentary on Revolver done by Public Radio International about two months ago. To make the case that Revolver was the Beatles' best they slight Rubber Soul to a criminal degree. But one interviewee noted that every generation wants to plant its own flag so it's no wonder that younger Beatles fans prefer something like Revolver over Sgt. Peppers. And it's true, you can here Revolver's influence much more today than Sgt. Pepper. But what kills me is we're talking about the same band here. Two consecutive albums that are deemed to be worlds apart! It's a testament to the power and influence of the Fab Four. Sgt. Pepper was a real Pandora's Box and a touchstone that guided most of the experimentation that would follow for the next ten years. (Can you imagine King Crimson's debut without Sgt. Pepper?) But by the late 70's, Paul Weller of the The Jam was working toward his own Revolver and felt he'd finally acheived it with Sound Affects in 1980. It's amazing that an artist would focus is early career in that manner, especially considering most things punk and new-wave masqueraded as anti-60's and anti-Beatles. Zappa hated Sgt. Pepper's and saw it as a sellout to the hippie crowd, partly because of its cover and title. Lennon said the title, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was a reference to the long-titled Bay Area bands like "The Grateful Jefferson Dead Airplane", as he called them. Yet, this album is distinctly English like few albums are. This was arguably McCartney's creative high point in the Beatles. (I would argue Lennon's was A Hard Day's Night.)

Btw, Sgt. Pepper sounds killer in mono. For all its accolades as a sonic breakthrough, the truth is Martin didn't have a firm handle on stereo mixing and relied on a lot of hard left/hard right effects. (The drums are clear and ringing, though. That would be lost by the time of the White Album.) Mono Beatles records were usually a different mix altogether, not just the collpasing of the two channels.

More disjointed thoughts: I don't think The Stone's Satanic Majesty's was a knockoff of Sgt. Pepper. I know that goes contrary to conventional wisdom and tons of ink by the critics but there's a lot of spacey, free-form jamming on that record and the Beatles weren't into that other than on a couple of occasions. Satanic Majesty's owes more to the psychedelic London underground bands like Pink Floyd, Tomorrow, etc. Those bands were obviously influenced by The Beatles but Revolverr had them up and running by 1966.

[Dusty Chalk]

Less influential than many claim.

I hear a lot of early Beatles in contemporary music, but I don't hear Sgt. Pepper. Not meant as a slam against the album, au contraire, I believe it to be rather unique. It's got such a particular sound, that even though zillions of people have listened to it, I see very little attempt at imitation, regurgitation, homage, or otherwise. And those melodies...

[3-LockBox]

sometimes...I feel like Art Linkletter hosting "Kid's Say The Darndest Things"

uuhhhh....okay

zzzzzzzzz

[Resident Loser]

uuhhhh....okay

zzzzzzzzz

...eyewitness accounts, even if the potential vagaries are taken into account, are significantly more accurate than transcripts...of copies...of word-of- mouth tales and lore, filtered through the lens of time...

I'll take a guess my Art Linkletter reference escapes you...If that is the case, hearsay reigns supreme...

jimHJJ(...context, context, context...)

[MasterCylinder]

Sgt. Peppers is definitely one of the milestones.

And rather than suggesting any one Beatles album is more important than another, I will just reflect that I agree Rubber Soul and Revolver set the stage for Sgt. Pepper to be what it eventually became.

I like to think that is true for each successive release from the Beatles -- a work in progress from "Love Me Do" to "The End".

[Resident Loser]

...not a knock-off, but the RS's Their Satanic Majesties Request was certainly their response to SPLHCB...and while the Beatles continued in somewhat the same vein as Pepper, the 'Stones abandoned all pretense of TSMR with the release of Beggar's Banquet...a return to their R&B roots...leaving the spacey stuff to PF and the Moody Blues...that branch of the tree evolving into progressive rock...

Generally speaking, I tend to see a distaste for progressive. Why is that?

jimHJJ(...jus' wunnerin'...)

[nobody]

I can only speak for myself, but oddly enough some of my reasons for disliking much of Progressive Rock are similar to your reasons for not liking the Velvet Underground...pretentious artistic aspirations...a bunch of self-indulgent noodling, music made for a narrow slice of the public, etc... Toss in goofy lyrics about spaceships and garden gnomes and it spells disaster to me.

That, and its all just rock 'n' roll to me. If you want to place the complexity of the music in the forefront, I really kinda think you're better off going the classical route. Want complexity?...listen to a symphony... Want a vocalist with real range and control?...listen to some opera... etc... Rock 'n' roll has never been about complexity and highbrow stuff. When prog tries to take that track, I just see it as a path I have little interest in within the confines of rock 'n' roll.

One more thing, I disagree a bit about the inherent value of "being there" in this discussion. I was alive, but not yet listening to music, but I don't really think it’s all that relevant to long term influence. In many ways, one who was heavily involved at the time will be prejudiced in favor of works that were vastly popular at the time, and tend to undervalue things that were less well-received initially, even if later generations really took to them and created new works from their inspiration...the essence of influence.

[Mike]

Now I'm torn here, that's one influential album everything from concept to cover and it stands the test of time like not many other 60's albums.

But I think the greatest influence is not the songs, as good as they are, but the sound and production and to me Sgt Peppers is so obviously influenced (particularly by Lennon) by Pet Sounds which came out a year earlier, only they took it a step further by introducing stereo panning to their sound. Saying that Sgt Peppers whilst a band album is so clearly influenced by McCartney who I don't think was so influenced by Pet Sounds.

Personally I prefer Sgt Peppers to Pet Sounds so that's no contest for me, but as for the more influential...I dunno

Cheers
Mike

[BradH]

...and while the Beatles continued in somewhat the same vein as Pepper, the 'Stones abandoned all pretense of TSMR with the release of Beggar's Banquet...a return to their R&B roots

This whole subject of the shift from 1967 psych to 1968 roots just fascinates the hell out of me, I don't know why. I've written a quantum buttload about it. The Beatles and Stones both largely abandoned the psych approach with "Lady Madonna" and "Jumping Jack Flash", both right around March 1968. But the Beach Boys and Dylan had them both beat by November '67. Not that Dylan was doing psychedelia but the BB's and Dylan released albums that were seen at the time as stark and stripped down compared to their earlier work. Paul Willams of Crawdaddy fame moaned over the loss of Smile and predicted Wild Honey and John Wesley Harding were harbingers of things to come if "Lady Madonna" was any indication. And, of course, by the time '68 was over you had Music from the Big Pink, Sweetheart of the Rodeo, CCR's debut. I think The White Album was ahead of Beggar's Banquet by a month at the end of the year.

In London, the weather was a factor, believe it or not. The autumn was abnormally warm in 1967. According to some accounts, the clothes among hip club-goers were still the light psychedelic wear all the way into November. Then they were hit with the coldest winter in about 100 years. Cold weather, a few bad acid trips, a broken relationship, next thing you know it's a bygone era. When was the Beatles "Mad Day Out"? March '68? They were in seclusion so the prevailing image of them was still Magical Mystery Tour from December. They were so concerned about being dated they went on a photo shoot around London to show they weren't still drowing in Paisley. So, there was a huge shift in the space of about 3 months.

...leaving the spacey stuff to PF and the Moody Blues...that branch of the tree evolving into progressive rock...

Total agreement on this. The prog strain grew out of the bands who didn't return to a rootsier approach for various reasons I could go into in a totally anal and psychotic way.

Generally speaking, I tend to see a distaste for progressive. Why is that?

Beats me. I'm probably writing in broad generalizations again like Troy accuses me of.

Here's a pic from the Mad Day Out.

[MasterCylinder]

for loser & nobody...............RE: Prog.

I can disagree with nobody's post on this. Prog is simply a merger of styles that happens to utilize rock instruments......I love it.

I have personally sat through two Rolling Stones concerts holding my nose.
Their musicianship is average at best. I once had a professor in music school tell the class that the "Stones and others similar to them, produce simple music for simple people"...........interesting quote.

On the other hand, I went out of my way last year to fly to Albuquerque to see Dream Theater and Yes on the same bill.........standing ovations all night.

And, BTW, it was sold out. Without the Beatles, it would have likely never happened.

[Resident Loser]

for loser & nobody...............RE: Prog.

I can disagree with nobody's post on this. Prog is simply a merger of styles that happens to utilize rock instruments......I love it.

I have personally sat through two Rolling Stones concerts holding my nose.
Their musicianship is average at best. I once had a professor in music school tell the class that the "Stones and others similar to them, produce simple music for simple people"...........interesting quote.

On the other hand, I went out of my way last year to fly to Albuquerque to see Dream Theater and Yes on the same bill.........standing ovations all night.

And, BTW, it was sold out. Without the Beatles, it would have likely never happened.

...while there is obviously more than enough room for self-indulgent noodling, I think using "rock" instruments to explore polyphony, harmony and multiple time signatures is what may be the catylst for folks to expand their viewpoints and investigate classical, opera and jazz...after all there does come a time when the ponytails get snipped and the only reason you have a backwards ballcap, is if your wearing a face-mask and chest protector...

At some point the current "rock" will no longer speak to you and while you may still enjoy the music of your youth, you will look to other previously unexplored genres...

I've run the gamut...from 40s and 50s big band/pop, "cowboy music" (as my mother refers to it), R&B and the rock idiom, classical, more rock, and soul, progressive, electronic, New Wave, country (until that achy-breaky moron screwed it up) and now back to the 40s and 50s...but this time 'round Parker, Coltrane, Davis, Gillespie, Hampton...actually the only real constant through it all has been classical, at varying intensities, for over a forty years during fifty years of conscious listening...

As a musician, growing beyond three or four chords and 4/4 time signature is just a matter of course...simple is good...but there's simple and there's simple...things can be complex in their simplicity and simple in their complexity...there needs to be tension and resolution...

jimHJJ(...sometimes a rest can evoke more emotion than a flurry of notes ever can...)

[3-LockBox]

...eyewitness accounts, even if the potential vagaries are taken into account, are significantly more accurate than transcripts...of copies...of word-of- mouth tales and lore, filtered through the lens of time...

I'll take a guess my Art Linkletter reference escapes you...If that is the case, hearsay reigns supreme...

jimHJJ(...context, context, context...)

I know who Art Linkletter is. I'm familiar with the show as well as Bill Cosby's version of it.

I'm old enough to have an opinion on the subject without having read about it, just incase that's what you meant by your "eyewitness accounts" statement. No hearsay, no re-write of what someone else said or wrote. No references to other people's quotes. Just my observations.

It'd be different if you just out and out disagreed with me. But you have a roundabout way of doing it, requiring more energy than a normal post. If I want conversation like this, I'll talk to my wife.

You're high maintenance.

[Resident Loser]

I know who Art Linkletter is. I'm familiar with the show as well as Bill Cosby's version of it.

I'm old enough to have an opinion on the subject without having read about it, just incase that's what you meant by your "eyewitness accounts" statement. No hearsay, no re-write of what someone else said or wrote. No references to other people's quotes. Just my observations.

It'd be different if you just out and out disagreed with me. But you have a roundabout way of doing it, requiring more energy than a normal post. If I want conversation like this, I'll talk to my wife.

You're high maintenance.

...I'm sorry if I engage anyone beyond their comfort level, but much like Stewed Bunny, that's what I do...

jimHJJ(...nothing personal...)

[nobody]

Never needed prog to wanna listen to jazz or classical or western swing or avant garde experimental noise music or any of a host of other genres I listen to. I had exposure to other genres of music from my youth, so I don't base my gateway to all genres on having to have some sort of rock based stepping stone. I'd just as well cut out the middle man.

I don't have a problem with other people liking prog. I just don't for the most part, for reasons I briefly touched on, but really more just because I don't connect with it when I hear it. Hate most fusion music too...despite liking all sorts of other jazz. So...if *****es Brew comes around on this list, I'll not be praising that one..another one of large influence I don't care for.

[3-LockBox]

Hate most fusion music too...despite liking all sorts of other jazz. So...if *****es Brew comes around on this list, I'll not be praising that one..another one of large influence I don't care for.

Me too. That'll be an interesting thread as well. I own a copy of Britches Bew. Its one of a few of my 'everyone else owns a copy' purchases.

[BradH]

I once had a professor in music school tell the class that the "Stones and others similar to them, produce simple music for simple people"...........interesting quote.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Why pay money for that when you could here it for free in high school? That's the insecure, elitist way we talked about music. We just didn't have a pipe and a beard. (Well, we did have a pipe...y'know...and one guy had a beard...never mind.)

Oh well, we've been down this road before...me...you...Jay...Troy...round and round.

But Dream Theater? Blech!!

You know why Yes, Genesis and King Crimson were so great?

They didn't grow up listening to Yes, Genesis and King Crimson.

Know what I mean?

[Dusty Chalk]

You know why Yes, Genesis and King Crimson were so great?

They didn't grow up listening to Yes, Genesis and King Crimson.

Such a great line, I had to quote it for appreciation.