Originally posted by laz
View Post
spreading the word
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by MrGongGong View PostI can't stand the Beatles
but 'Sgt Pepper' IS one of the most significant musical creations of western culture
and
It's not one or the other you know
one can have both
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View PostI'm not so sure about this. The cover and the repeating groove are by far the most interesting bits.
But not in the eyes of those who decide what "everyone likes"
1: Malt Whisky
2: I can buy and play with dangerous power tools
3: I don't have to like the same things as everyone else
and i'm probably on a completely different planet anyway ..................
So if "the word" is that Macca is a charlatan then I'm happy to spread away (but will probably be done for libel )
but I'm still not sure that that is what was meant ?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View PostMight it be "Sidney"?
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
(other versions are available )
Comment
-
-
IRF
Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View PostThe "some" being "one"! (And Pepper was begun in late '66). And the worldwide sales of Pepper in 1967 far outstrip Piper's. Piper is a wonderful album, (as McCartney was one of the first to notice) but in terms of the larger cultural impact it didn't/hasn't yet match/ed the Scousers'.
The notion, therefore, that Sgt. Pepper's somehow opened the door for more ambitious pop albums would seem to be disproven by the timeline -- the more ambitious albums were already being made before Sgt. Pepper's was a proven success.
(I don't mean to denigrate Sgt. Pepper's, I do admire the Beatles. But I think its direct influence is commonly assumed to be greater than it was, as many "underground" bands were already doing equally ambitious things in blissful ignorance of what was happening at Abbey Road that year. But I was barely born at the time, so I may be mis-reading history.)
Comment
-
Originally posted by IRF View PostI think you have missed my point.My point was that Piper was recorded before Sgt. Pepper's had made any kind of cultural impact (and Pink Floyd were playing the material that would eventually form Piper live in 1966).
The notion, therefore, that Sgt. Pepper's somehow opened the door for more ambitious pop albums would seem to be disproven by the timeline -- the more ambitious albums were already being made before Sgt. Pepper's was a proven success.
(I don't mean to denigrate Sgt. Pepper's, I do admire the Beatles. But I think its direct influence is commonly assumed to be greater than it was, as many "underground" bands were already doing equally ambitious things in blissful ignorance of what was happening at Abbey Road that year. But I was barely born at the time, so I may be mis-reading history.)[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
-
Paul Sherratt
-
Lateralthinking1
I think you can make a case for many elements of popular music in the 1960s having an impact on subsequent groups. Sometimes there have been significant time gaps. There were over 20 years between the Byrds and the Stone Roses and nearly 30 between the Kinks and Blur. I am not really a Piper sort of chap so I would be asking instead "Pepper or Pet?" That's Pet as in the Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds". On most days, I would just choose the latter on musical merit but not on legacy as arguably it is musically unique. It was though groundbreaking technically even if many could claim to have been so. Technology was moving very fast.
Exclusive classicists might feel that this is too much like a never-ending story. I have some sympathy here, not least because of the repetitive play over decades and all of the hype, but I tend to think of it as wonderful history. The 1990s dance scene blew much of it out of the water. Now anyone can do anything from any era, including earlier, but don't ask most to do something new.
(Simultaneous posting Paul - inadvertent; my apologies)Last edited by Guest; 14-11-12, 15:44.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lateralthinking1 View PostThat's Pet as in the Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds". On most days, I would just choose the latter on musical merit but not on legacy as arguably it is musically unique. It was though groundbreaking technically even if many could claim to have been so. Technology was moving very fast.
(And Wilson was inspired/provoked by Rubber Soul to explore and develop his own work in Pet Sounds.)[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
-
IRF
-
laz
Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View Postlaz-y thinking: the victims of Christian in-fighting during the Renaissance, the devastation of the Natural landscape and exploitation of people in the Industrial Revolution, the Slave Trade, the growth of the European Empires during the Age of Enlightenment (to say nothing of the origins of "mind-altering substances"!) all suggest that to summarise these eras as "universally beneficial" demonstrates not so much a poor as rather a blinkered view of History.
And, if this is acceptable, then so must be an equally blinkered view of the era of Pepper which solely rightly applauds the way young people were encouraged to question authority, encouraged to discover their own truths, encouraged to reject repressive lifestyles promised to them. Watching newsreel of Hitler mystifies kids today; how could anyone take that poisonous clown seriously? That such a view is a "default" setting in young people's mindsets nowadays is down to attitudes established in the '60s - attitudes which were most singly expressed in the work of the Beatles. "Freedom without responsibility"? Preferable to the responsibilities shouldered by responsible adults in Germany in the 1930s.
I don`t think many people would agree that neither the renaissance or age of enlghtement were not universally beneficial ; the latter gave birth to the movement that led to abolishing slavery (in the western hemisphere); Empires existed long before either era and generally were not as liberal as the british one
the industrial, revolution was invention inspired and was necessary for us to enjoy all of the benefits of our modern society; very few such advancements are without a downside ...the internal combustion engine...Oil ...the contemporary green movement all have their considerable downsides
Germany and Hitler was the direct result of a narrow nationalism borne out of their unification in 1870 . They were a young country in 1914 and of course were not defeated until 1945
However we`re straying from the original issue . I can`t accept Sgt Pepper as a significant musical artisitic achievement although at least from this short distance clearly a product of an important social development. Examining the music itself the rhythmns and metres are generally monotonous , key strucures simple ,harmonies relatively bland , words a bit self indulgent and there is no dynamic it`s all loud and amplified artificially. While Paul McC could compose a tune as good as any they are never developed an d in any event the same cannot be said of John Lennon. Furthermore clearly there is no orchestral colouration with a handful of electronic instruments
I believe we would be better off as a society if the media would permit us to see albums such as Sgt Pepper in their correct historical perspective as works of art rather than in the social milieu where they garner ludicrous and extravagant adulation
I`ve been to a number of rock `gigs` but i`ve never been asked to ensure my mobile is turned off. Have you?
Comment
-
Originally posted by laz View PostEmpires existed long before either era and generally were not as liberal as the british one
However we`re straying from the original issue . I can`t accept Sgt Pepper as a significant musical artisitic achievement although at least from this short distance clearly a product of an important social development. Examining the music itself the rhythmns and metres are generally monotonous
key strucures simple ,harmonies relatively bland
words a bit self indulgent and there is no dynamic it`s all loud and amplified artificially. While Paul McC could compose a tune as good as any they are never developed an d in any event the same cannot be said of John Lennon. Furthermore clearly there is no orchestral colouration with a handful of electronic instruments
Comment
-
-
laz
Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View PostMy father (1908-2001) thought the way you do, mate, and, more dangerously, tried to get my thinking to be along similar lines. They never told him about Amritsa either - I think "Ghandi" rather shook him up towards the end - and that was just starters.
What - the amalgative combination of rock vocals with Indian music in "Within You Without You" rhythmically and metrically simple???
Maybe harmonically bland compared with eg Mahler 10, but I'd bet old Gustav would have bestowed a smile or two on "She's Leaving Home", not just for the harmonic scheme - which, like so much of the Beatles' workk at this time, departs from and represents an extension on popular ABA song forms still largely unsurpassed - but for the ironic juxtaposition of story and musical means of expression
While volume in terms of decibels is targettable for criticism in most if not all rock music, you would have to define what is meant by "artificially" before putting on any recording for listening purposes in order to avoid being in bad faith! Clearly you haven't really listened to SP if you claim "The Benefit of Mr Kite", "Within You Without You" and "A Day in the LIfe" to be lacking orchestral (whatever your "orchestral" means) colouration, and describing what you call the handful of instruments used as being electronic amounts to an oxymoron.
I certainly do not see SP as without merit and you`re possibly right about old Gustav; I think Mariss Janssons is a fan. But its adulation and influence is out of all proportion to its musical qualities and we would be better off if the popular media who are sensible enough to appreciate this (but who indulge in it for their own purposes) , would act and broadcast accordingly. It`s a tragedy that the vast majority of people under 30 see their musical horizon and appreciation exclusively in terms of a 3 minute pop jangle and SP as the summit of western musical achievement. In the future whilst we`ll listen to it (I suspectmore for nostalgia than because it remains relevant) we will wonder what all th e fuss was about
Comment
Comment