Quote:
Originally Posted by jackhammer
That's the nature of Pop music. Bands come and go but very few achieve longevity because someone else will come along next year and last years favourite flavour will be this years shit covered stick in the bargain bin at your local charity shop.
It is not really worth sweating over something that is hugely popular if you know it's crap. You won't change the minds of the blind masses out there so let them get on with it.
As for Bob Marley. Yes he was a sincere artist. Yes he was a decent songwriter but it was definitely right place at the right time. .
|
But Bob Marley is 'rock'? And yet he can just be fashion too. Exactly how you define what is rock and what is pop is far from easy anyway. But really you could just as easily argue that most of rock dates and is just fashion just as much as pop and that there is just as much throwaway rock as there is pop. And the fact that pop is constantly changing could be indicative of the constant creativity in the melting pot of styles it can represent. Depending on how you define 'rock' you could say that style has also mean another melting pot of styles too. Rock and pop are such general terms when people use them often. And some things that sell a lot of records can actually be pretty good. And all styles become dated (but only until they are resurrected in retro style?) but does that mean they are no longer listenable? The classical baroque style really became outdated and nobody composed much in it after it ended but we can still like it today if we make the effort to understand it (same with any style).
Quote:
Originally Posted by William Zanzinger
Probably opening a can of worms here, but I think some classic albums require reassessment in the cold light of an almost new millenium.
Pour moi (a diehard Beatles fan, btw), Sergeant Pepper is the most over rated album ever.
There are at most, four songs which are decent-the rest (Lovely Rita, Within you, Fixing a Hole,When I`m 64 etc) are ordinary at best.
The album does capture the spirit of psychedelia, possibly the zitgheist of the age, but it`s no way the best Beatles album.
Revolver, Rubber Soul, With the Beatles and Abbey Road were all far superior.
Likewise Sticky Fingers by the Stones-two or three good tracks and then zilch.
Anyway-discuss....
|
I think it's a pretty good album. Good Morning, Mr Kite and Within You might be the weakest but other songs have been covered quite a lot. Abbey Road is more consistent though. Mr Kite for me is an example of where the production probably is too important in making the song work, but others like When I'm 64 hardly has much production to it. Then again maybe we shouldn't always separate the production from a song and should accept it as being just a well crafted work of sonic art, just like a great painting is often not redone in a new way? And personally I wouldn't compare The Rolling Stones to The Beatles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrophonic Tonic
If it's really good for the time and influences other to follow suit, it does. There have been a lot of albums that have broken ground for production techniques and quality. The Beatles just have the extra perk of being the most recognizable name in music, so it's just magnified.
Before this thread gets shut down, I don't think Sgt. Pepper is as overrated as some of my peers say it is. If anything, it's the early Beatles work that is all fluff and no substance. It's not because it's bad, but because it doesn't separate itself from the other British Invasion works of the time. Pretty much 95% of their work from their breakthrough up to the time they did 'Ticket to Ride' and 'I Feel Fine' is on par with everyone else.
|
I'm not sure many bands had the sheer energy and freshness of some of that earlier work by The Beatles. And I still don't get why influence is a measure of quality. Something might be influential just because it sounds different to other stuff at the time or because of the marketing and image of someone.
And I don't think there is any reason for this thread to get shut down.