What album(s) was a musical epiphany for you?

[nobody]

Good Topic.

What's interesting to me about it is that many of my very favorite groups wouldn't put anything in this category. Stuff like Chuck Berry, Elvis, Little Richard and more never really came to me as an epiphany. They were just always in the air from the crib on up. Still, there are a few albums and such I could point to...

The Clash - Give 'Em Enough Rope
This just rocked. Yet, it had something to say, both on a personal and a political level. Stay Free is still one of my favorite songs.

Black Flag - Nervous Breakdown single
Brutal side of punk. As an adolescent, once I heard these guys, my musical interests for the next several years of my life were set. Sure, there were other excursions, early rap, old soul, a little jazz and reggae, but if you were young and angry when this came out, it fit like a glove.

John Lee Hooker
OK...not a record, but a performance. As a teenager with little blues interests, a free ticket to his gig magnified my appreciation for blues music exponentially.

Massive Attack - Protection
Getting older, slowing down. It's laid back, it's got a bite. Smooth R&B mixed with a hip hop sensibility and a modern electronic sound. Electronic, yet organic.

I could probably go on with quite a few more, but I'll just call it a post here.

[Dave_G]

Well, lets see.

You see, music, to me, is also very important, and I listen a lot (or used to) on the stereo in altered states.

I still listen, but not in altered states.

Stuff that hit me real hard were:

1) Yes - Tormato. A corny ass album to most, but I love it's simplicity but way deep music ideas and concepts.

2) Kansas - Leftoverture. I remember that day it came out. When I first heard "Carry on Wayward Son" I knew that Kansas was something special in my musical life.

3) Genesis - The Lamb, sides 1 and 2. Genesis could rock when they wanted to. Songs like "back in new york city" are so powerful to my ears, not much comes close. Also Trespass, although way different from the Lamb.

4) Bob Marley - Rastaman Vibration. When I was 16 and into green stuff that you start on fire and inhale, my virgin ears had never heard a reggae song. When I was over at a friends having a good time he put on this album and my eyes went wide open. "What in the hell is that stuff"? I crooned". "Marley", said Roger. I was hooked. Peaceful content and that bass and rhythym did me in. Still love BMW altho I dont start green things on fire anymore.

5) Deep Purple - Machine Head - got me hooked on hard rock real fast, at age 13 or 14 when that album came out.

6) Human League - Dare. My first foray into new wave, I loved that cheesy ass album and still do.

Plus also XTC - "Black Sea", Devo's first, Rush's "2112", and a buncha other stuff.

Dave

[Worf101]

Good Topic.

What's interesting to me about it is that many of my very favorite groups wouldn't put anything in this category. Stuff like Chuck Berry, Elvis, Little Richard and more never really came to me as an epiphany. They were just always in the air from the crib on up. Still, there are a few albums and such I could point to...

Very interesting point. These men were/are God's on the earth. They, along with Big Joe Turner and perhaps Louis Jordan and His Tympany 5, are the founders of modern popular muisc, the trunk of the tree. Jazz and blues came before but these men helped give birth to RocknRoll and all that came after, but like you they just "existed" for me from birth like oxygen, there was no music for me BEFORE them.

[/QUOTE]John Lee Hooker
OK...not a record, but a performance. As a teenager with little blues interests, a free ticket to his gig magnified my appreciation for blues music exponentially.[/QUOTE]

Another sterling point. Sometimes you have to see/hear/experience a genre, before you can appreciate a genre.

Da Worfster

[MindGoneHaywire]

Worf:

They, along with Big Joe Turner and perhaps Louis Jordan and His Tympany 5, are the founders of modern popular muisc

Worf, I'm a big fan, but let's not overstate the case. I've seen Bing Crosby given the credit for inventing pop singing, and I see no evidence to the contrary. As a musician I'm sure you're aware that Les Paul invented multitrack recording. As much a fan as I am of Turner & Jordan, others would say Louis Prima is just as deserving of such accolades, or even throw names into that hat like Wynonie Harris or Howlin' Wolf or Ray Charles or or or...which is not to say that I'd argue the same thing, just that it's perhaps just a bit more subjective. Despite the idiotic things he said about rock'n'roll, Frank Sinatra transformed pop singing in the 1950s, and Barbara Streisand made her mark in the 60s, too (though I can't stand just about anything she ever did & probably wouldn't even if she didn't sing endlessly flat, which she did). My take is that the Beatles came in & essentially wiped the slate clean, and a large percentage of rock'n'roll, if not popular music in general, became far more influenced by them, & those they influenced, than by much that had come before them. Now, they were obviously influenced by Elvis, Larry Williams, Arthur Alexander, Carl Perkins, & the like, but while Ringo was a fan of Lightnin' Hopkins, I've never seen anything suggesting they were big on guys like Jordan, Turner, Prima, or anyone like that. Moreover, only putting a couple of names out there like Jordan & Turner as the architects of rock'n'roll ignores the country influence. Without going into a name-dropping exercise, I'd just point out that it was only in combination with the hillbilly stuff that the influence of guys like Jordan 'created' r'n'r. The dismissal of C&W by people who 'just don't like it' is common, but irrelevant. In many cases it's based on the contemporary stuff & done by people who have rarely, if ever heard, the people who were recording in the 30s, 40s, & 50s, and who have likely never heard any Western Swing, which puts much r'n'r from ANY era to shame.

I only have two Jordan CDs: the MCA greatest hits, and a record he made for Mercury in the mid/late 50s, which amounts to a re-working of some of his earlier stuff, but with a pronounced r'n'r influence; he made the arrangements slightly more aggressive in a bid to cash in on the stuff that he did significantly influence, which had become a legitimate and lucrative form. Have to say I actually dig the later rec just as much, if not more than, the standard greatest hits collection. If there's something else you think is essential, feel free to recommend. As for Turner...still haven't managed to corral much of his early stuff. I do have a hits collection from Atlantic; the R&B years. Outside of that, I do have the odd track on this or that R&B comp or box set, the most remarkable of which is on the Swingtime Records box--Radar Blues. Ever hear that one? I think it's from 1948 & easily my favorite song by him. Rocks like a mofo. I tucked it on a blues comp I sent around to some folks on this board a few years ago (if you have any interest, PM me). In the meantime, I'm still on the lookout for a way to get my paws on stuff 'Roll 'Em Pete' & others from that period.

[Worf101]

Worf:

They, along with Big Joe Turner and perhaps Louis Jordan and His Tympany 5, are the founders of modern popular muisc

Worf, I'm a big fan, but let's not overstate the case. I've seen Bing Crosby given the credit for inventing pop singing, and I see no evidence to the contrary. As a musician I'm sure you're aware that Les Paul invented multitrack recording. As much a fan as I am of Turner & Jordan, others would say Louis Prima is just as deserving of such accolades, or even throw names into that hat like Wynonie Harris or Howlin' Wolf or Ray Charles or or or...which is not to say that I'd argue the same thing, just that it's perhaps just a bit more subjective.

Hey mind... I wasn't speaking in "absolute's" just my opinion is all I listen to what Louis Jordan was doing in the late 40's and while the "1-4-5" had been around for decades, it hadn't quited rocked like THAT before. You can make a case for several people or groups of people as the progentors of RNR. I choose the people I do because of when they did it, how they did it. They might not be the ONLY one's but they were among the first.

Despite the idiotic things he said about rock'n'roll, Frank Sinatra transformed pop singing in the 1950s, and Barbara Streisand made her mark in the 60s, too (though I can't stand just about anything she ever did & probably wouldn't even if she didn't sing endlessly flat, which she did)..

Unh you gonna have to prove that one to me. Sinatra was a great "pop" singer of the 30's 40's and 50's, but we're talking about RNR here. I don't get his relevance to this conversation. and I really don't get Bab's inclusion.

My take is that the Beatles came in & essentially wiped the slate clean, and a large percentage of rock'n'roll, if not popular music in general, became far more influenced by them, & those they influenced, than by much that had come before them. Now, they were obviously influenced by Elvis, Larry Williams, Arthur Alexander, Carl Perkins, & the like, but while Ringo was a fan of Lightnin' Hopkins, I've never seen anything suggesting they were big on guys like Jordan, Turner, Prima, or anyone like that. Moreover, only putting a couple of names out there like Jordan & Turner as the architects of rock'n'roll ignores the country influence..

If you'd read my original post you'd realize that I was merely ADDING Turner's and Jordan's name to the list of early progenetors provided by "Nobody". I'm not foolish enough to give any two people credit for inventing a musical genre.. RnR evolved from the Blues but these guys HELPED to give it it's most recognizable form. That's all I'm saying.

To continue our running battle as to the importance and influence of the Beatles on popular music today. I don't know if we're ever going to agree on this one. Of course we're talking post Sgt. Peppers Beatles not the Fab 4 that were covering Motown songs. I admit Sgt. Peppers was/is ground breaking but I still don't feel it was a lasting "sea change" in popular music. I own the album, I listen to it (particularly after these conversations) and it still don't hear it reflected around me today as much as say James Brown's "Funky Drummer". This doesn't take away from their place in music history... not by any means, but all history doesn't remain relevant in all ways.

Da Worfster

[PPG]

Sgt. Pepper's LHCB

Sparks - Kimono My House

10cc- Original Soundtrack

Jean-Luc Ponty - Aurora

Synergy - Metropolitan Suite

Return To Forever - Romantic Warrior

Cheap Trick - In Color

[MindGoneHaywire]

I listen to what Louis Jordan was doing in the late 40's and while the "1-4-5" had been around for decades, it hadn't quited rocked like THAT before

I hear ya, but I disagree mildly, as there are exceptions to that. Granted, Jordan really refined what others did bits & pieces of, stuff that was rockin', but I enjoy hearing those bits & pieces. Like some of the more aggressive-sounding swing stuff, like Big Joe Turner's 'Roll 'Em Pete,' like Illinois Jacquet's 'Flying Home,' like Wynonie Harris, like Prima, like a few things Nat King Cole was doing in the late 30s (most notably 'Please Be Mine-a-ble'), like Jimmie Lunceford, like some of the stuff on labels like Specialty & Mercury in 1944 & 1945, stuff in that vein. Nobody's going to make a credible case that anyone or anything here made more of an imprint on r'n'r than Jordan (save perhaps Louis Prima). But they're there, & this is stuff I seek out actively & am always on the lookout for. There's plenty I haven't heard. If this sort of stuff rocks yr boat, check out Nick Toshes' 'Unsung Heroes Of Rock'n'Roll.'

You can make a case for several people or groups of people as the progentors of RNR. I choose the people I do because of when they did it, how they did it. They might not be the ONLY one's but they were among the first.

I agree completely. Jordan is probably the key figure, though I think Prima is equally deserving. Outside of recognizing those two, I concur that it was a group effort. Turner's contribution, I believe, was rooted & focused more firmly towards the blues side of the spectrum, though. Which is not to say that he wasn't influential, but I think Jordan rates ahead of him in that regard.

Unh you gonna have to prove that one to me.

On Streisand? Do you have absolute pitch? Go back & listen to the records. She's flat. Always was. Today they might use pitch shifters, but the woman always sang flat. Not outrageously flat, but painful to my ears nonetheless. And I listen to plenty of rock music with off-key singing that doesn't bother me; but it's not a genre where that's of tremendous importance. Streisand's brand of pop music highlights professionalism, if not perfection, and it's always been a source of consternation to me that nobody ever acknowledges her flat singing. It's there. Trust me. Again, not to denigrate her abilities in other areas, though it's not my cup of tea, the woman is talented. But her pitch was always off.

we're talking about RNR here. I don't get his relevance to this conversation.

You said 'modern popular music.' Specifically, you said They, along with Big Joe Turner and perhaps Louis Jordan and His Tympany 5, are the founders of modern popular muisc. That's why I brought up Bing Crosby, Les Paul, Sinatra, & Streisand. Sorry if this seems anal, but I'm not going to assume that you're talking only about rock music when you make a statement like that. And I have what I think is a pretty good reason: way too many fans of rock music--and I certainly don't include you in this--are so rock-centric that they never bother with anything that's NOT rock. This is a disturbing attitude, but I wasn't accusing you of it, just making a point. I think it's important to acknowledge what these artists did. There's already enough people running around who think there was no such thing as music, or good music, prior to rock and roll. It's that crappy attitude that I was addressing, more so than yr comment specifically. So pardon me.

If you'd read my original post you'd realize that I was merely ADDING Turner's and Jordan's name to the list of early progenetors provided by "Nobody". I'm not foolish enough to give any two people credit for inventing a musical genre.. RnR evolved from the Blues

I read the post. I didn't imply you were giving them & only them credit, just that there's a lot more to it, & yr post read like an overstatement of the importance of Jordan & Turner. That's my opinion, but I think it's pretty firmly grounded in fact. Go back & take a look at that post, and then read the last sentence in the post I just excerpted above. It completely ignores the influence of country & western. If you're talking about blues & jazz, that's one thing. If you're talking r'n'r, that's a different story altogether, & to completely ignore country just doesn't wash.

To continue our running battle as to the importance and influence of the Beatles on popular music today. I don't know if we're ever going to agree on this one.

Perhaps not.

Of course we're talking post Sgt. Peppers Beatles not the Fab 4 that were covering Motown songs.

We are? Just the fact that you think of the Fab 4 as a band that was 'covering Motown songs' tells me that you're viewing them through a very strange prism. What'd they cover, 3 Motown songs? 4? In 1963? We're talking about an act that managed 7 full-length, 12 or 14 song albums in less than 4 years between 1963 & 1966. Not counting non-LP singles, B-sides, & EP tracks. 4 Motown covers out of what, 90 or 100 songs?

I'd say that songs like And I Love Her, Yesterday, & Michelle all had a pretty big impact; you'll hear those in the supermarket before you'll hear anything they did after 1966. I remember reading somewhere that by the early 1970s--perhaps 1970--there were 1,000 recorded cover versions of 'Yesterday.' Oh, and 'Something' was one of the songs, if not the song, that changed Frank Sinatra's mind about rock'n'roll--no mean feat.

I admit Sgt. Peppers was/is ground breaking but I still don't feel it was a lasting "sea change" in popular music.

Sounds like what you said about Pet Sounds. Sgt. Pepper was as ground breaking as it was in some part because the followup to Pet Sounds wasn't finished on time & never was, & still hasn't been released to this day. Had it been released in January of 1967 we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I don't buy the Sgt. Pepper hype either, but the record is considered to be the most important album and the most important artistic statement by the band widely considered to be the most successful & influential rock band ever. So it has to carry some weight. It's certainly not a fraud. Its problem is that it seems more of its time now than it probably did at the time; it hasn't aged well. But that's partly because so many took inspiration from new ideas & put out work that explored those ideas more fully than the Beatles did, in some cases exploring those ideas to a fault (pretentious, overblown concept albums & the like). When that happens one can tend to lose sight of how important the original actually was. And it was important. But there were also things going on on Pet Sounds that the Beatles incorporated into that record, and on its followup as well. Maybe someday it'll see the light of day.

I listen to it (particularly after these conversations) and it still don't hear it reflected around me today as much as say James Brown's "Funky Drummer

Yeah, but that conveniently ignores the fact that Funky Drummer almost singlehandedly inspired the hip-hop aspect of rap music--not to mention that Serge Gainsbourg had a VERY similar beat going on on a tune of his done over a year before James Brown recorded it. Rock & rap are two different forms; rock is not one that could or would be so influenced by one & only one song in particular, so the comparison is unfair. If you're exposed to stuff influenced by Funky Drummer, fine. If you're listening to a classic rock radio station, which a lot of people apparently do, it's a joke to suggest that you don't hear the influence of Sgt. Pepper reflected today. Its influence is all over those playlists, which inexplicably manage to keep radio stations afloat. Keep in mind that prior to the lawsuit regulating the use of samples, 'Funky Drummer' was the illegally-used blueprint for approximately half of the rap recorded during its first decade. And I don't say that to downplay its influence, only to point out that the circumstances under which that influence flowered were somewhat artificial, relative to rock music. Bits & pieces of rock records were not used without license by rock bands influenced by those bits & pieces. And lest you take these remarks the wrong way, I am not anti-sampling & never have been (I get sick & tired of hearing from people who call themselves 'musicians' that sampling is this or that...always prefaced by 'I'm a musician,' as though that's supposed to mean something, that they're supposed to have a license for a blanket denunciation of sampling as being a crime against nature, or something. I'm a 'musician,' too. So what? Sampling has become a function of music, whether they like it or not). But it's quite possible that had the law reflected that the creators of work & owners of copyright had to be properly compensated for sampling some 25 years ago, that 'Funky Drummer' might not have had the impact it did--and in fact rap may have grown in a very different way.

More significantly, you're not taking into account that the Beatles' influence is sometimes hard to detect because it's gone through so many filters. Sit down & compare the Please Please Me Album to Rubber Soul, then compare Help! to the White Album, then try Revolver vs. Abbey Road, lastly A Hard Day's Night with Sgt. Pepper. The difference in years between each of those records is three years, or close to it. The stylistic range is pretty impressive, I believe. But the Beatles not only pioneered many of the styles they dabbled in (which is not to say that influences aren't recognizable, only that they're not exactly derivative), but they were also pretty darn good at most of 'em. They didn't spend much time doing stuff they weren't good at. If you take the time to divide their music by style or period, you can look at acts that were specifically & directly influenced by what they did. In some you can hear garage band influence based on their early material; in others you can hear syrupy ballads; in others you can hear psychedelic work reminiscent of Sgt. Pepper itself, or 'pop opera' conceits inspired by side two of Abbey Road. The list is long & impressive. And I say that anything that those acts influenced--and that's not exactly a short list, either--probably has something of a Beatles influence in one form or another. Oasis wasn't the only band in the past 10 years that was influenced by the Beatles.

Simply put, there haven't been many acts in rock music in the past 40 years that weren't influenced by the Beatles in some way, or at least influenced by artists that were themselves influenced by the Beatles, or...and so on.

[jack70]

To continue our running battle as to the importance and influence of the Beatles on popular music today. I don't know if we're ever going to agree on this one. Of course we're talking post Sgt. Peppers Beatles not the Fab 4 that were covering Motown songs. I admit Sgt. Peppers was/is ground breaking but I still don't feel it was a lasting "sea change" in popular music. I own the album, I listen to it (particularly after these conversations) and it still don't hear it reflected around me today as much as say James Brown's "Funky Drummer". This doesn't take away from their place in music history... not by any means, but all history doesn't remain relevant in all ways.

You realize Worf, that you risk blowing this thread up with that (Beatles) opinion? LOL! Although I'm more in the middle when it comes to the Beatles (as icons) than many others here... I have to agree with Jay on a few things.

First, I don't think much Motown influence was in the Beatles at all. A few album filler cuts (of things they liked), means little in actual influencing their work. In fact, most other British Invasion bands of that era had much more outside (R&B) influence in their material (Animals, Them, Kinks, Pretty Things, Rolling Stones) than the Beatles did. Other bands had Soul influences, but they're less well known to most. The Beatles early stuff was very country influenced, via Perkins and others. It's just one reason they sounded so different and unique.

On Sgt Pepper:
I'm one who agrees with those who call it "ultimately fraudulent" (look at Zappa's parody cover for a clue). But at the same time you... are missing the point about the album's importance too. That may sound contradictory, but let me explain. I think the album isn't as consistently solid or original as even Rubber Soul or Revolver. I also think it suffers from a lack of overall cohesiveness, despite appearing to be a cohesive thing. I generally don't think it's as "special" as many think it to be. However... (big caveat here), it DID influence pop music in profound ways that still echo through the music industry. Just read any of the early R&Rer's of the era... they all have important things to say about that album. It's simply not a "fluke" thing that so many point to it with adoration. It changed the way musicians approached albums... from the way they were recorded, produced, and just thought about. Just as important was the way lyrics got way more complex and expansive overnight. Of course, MUCH of the credit of Sgt Pepper goes to the 5'th Beatle, George Martin.

I DO think the album would have been quite a bit better had Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane been included, which they weren't for commercial reasons (the business aspect of 45/EP releases in the UK during the 60's). But as much I have fond memories of the album, it didn't knock me out (no epiphanies) the way it did to others. No matter... it's still a big deal.

I agree with Jay that it's very difficult to view it in proper context today because of the millions of songs that have come after it. It has to be judged from it's time (to be fair), and that's difficult unless one lived through it. It's like saying Edison's wax cylinders weren't "so great" compared in light of decades of technological improvements since. Influences in art have to be looked at the same way. Here's a few of the current "hit songs" in early 67... at the very time of "A Day in the Life, Strawberry Fields" etc) It's from Tony Jasper's British pressing Top Twenty, a nice little old paperback I often flip through (to keep history in perspective). They're all top-10 hits.

Release Me - Englebert Humperdink
This is My Song - Petula Clark
Let's Spend the Night Together - Rolling Stones
I'm A Believer - The Monkees
Peek-a-Boo - New Vaudville Band
Snoopy vs the Red Baron - The Royal Guardsmen
Simon Smith & His Amazing Dancing Bear - Alan Price
I Was Kaiser Bill's Batman - Whistling Jack Smith
Something Stupid - Frank & Nancy Sinatra
Touch Me, Touch Me - Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Tich
Ha Ha Said the Clown - Manfred Mann

Heavy sh_t, don't you think?

but I still don't feel it was a lasting "sea change" in popular music

I'm one who'll credit many others in addition to the Beatles for future R&R music (the late 60's & 70's)... but this WAS a "sea change". Some would even call it a Tsunami.

[Mr MidFi]

A lot of my all-time favorites had to grow on me slowly. Conversely, many of the albums that "blew me away" on first listen couldn't stand up to repeated listens.

A few of the ones that grabbed me by the short hairs and wouldn't let go include:

Genesis - Trick of the Tail
I was 13 years old. Just starting to learn that there was more to music than just AM radio. Then I heard this (and Aqualung, Brain Salad Surgery, and Fragile) and my life, as I know it, began.

Lou Reed - Rock n Roll Animal
I didn't really like Lou Reed that much. But the dual guitar attack on this disc just freakin' slayed me.

U2 - War
I was a marginal fan of their first 2 albums already. But then the college radio station (WUOG, The Last One Left) played this one at midnight on its release date, while I was in my dorm room studying. All I remember is telling my roommate to shut the F up...this was something important going on.

REM - Life's Rich Pageant
The only REM album that I immediately loved on first listen. The rest of them had to grow on me.

Radiohead - Kid A
Built to Spill - Ancient Melodies of the Future
I went a long time between epiphanies. A long time. Then, I had two at the same time. At a listening station in a Border's book store. Life's funny like that.

[unleasHell]

there are probably more than this, but just off the top of my head...

Yardbirds: Live, featuring Jimmy Page, bought this as a kid and loved it...

NEU: Neu (Hallo Gallo is trance inducing even without drugs)
Can: Future Days (bought this new with my paper-route money)
AmonDuul II: Tanz der Lemmings (all three of these opened my live-long love for Kraut rock)

Tangerine Dream: Phaedra (showed me the inventive side of synthesizers)

Pink Floyd: DSOTM: (Perfectly Polished Prog)

Madness/Specials/English Beat: All of their First releases, unleashed the magic of SKA!

Joy Division: Unknown Pleasures (This album scared the hell out of me for years, and is now my number one favorite of all time...)

And that is just the 70's....

[MasterCylinder]

In chrono..............

Almost any Beatles.
Almost any Cream.
Any Zeppelin.
Any Yes.
Almost any Deep Purple.
Almost any Gentle Giant.
Any Return to Forever.
Any Dream Theater.

[Swish]

Not sure how I missed XTC's Skylarking. It's still my favorite from them and certainly in my 100 Essential list, not that I ever completed it. Ditto for Goodbye Jumbo from World Party. Prolly should have the Feelies 'Only Life' in there too. VU with Nico...man, I need to ponder this for a few more days (sigh). My CRS disease is really making things difficult for me.