|
Post by OldFred on Sept 20, 2015 9:01:09 GMT -5
Keith Richards calls Our Johnny a looney!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 20, 2015 11:10:49 GMT -5
Now I know you are joking: 1. Beggars Banquet(1968); 2. Let It Bleed(1969): 3. Sticky Fingers (1971); and 4. Exile on Main St.(1972). Those are easily as good as Pepper, White Album, AR and LIB and probably better than Pepper and LIB. I am not disloyal to say that, just objective. I think you are jesting JSD with that little list of Stones albums, they aren't in the same ball park as the Beatles albums Not disloyal John, I just see you as a part-time Beatles fan; part of you likes them, part of you doesn't.... Do part-timers deserve as many stars (status) next to their name on this board as full-timers who have fewer stars?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 20, 2015 12:01:40 GMT -5
fabfour, you don't like the Stones at all so you are biased, I suspect you'd put the Monkees before the Stones! debjorgo, I can never tell if you are joking but after dismissing the four albums you go on to list some of the great songs on three of the four and those are the anchors, the iconic songs. The others are all great deep cuts and have been staples of FM radio since their release.
Exile is a great album, like any double album there is so much to explore. It rocks all over the place.
For 40 years I have heard and read from most Beatles fans who summarily diss the Stones(and all other groups/artists) but when we get past our xenophobic-like tendencies as Beatles nerds, it is sobering how good other bands and artists were/are and the Fabs don't have a monopoly on musical greatness. But that is good, right?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 20, 2015 12:07:37 GMT -5
I think you are jesting JSD with that little list of Stones albums, they aren't in the same ball park as the Beatles albums Not disloyal John, I just see you as a part-time Beatles fan; part of you likes them, part of you doesn't.... Do part-timers deserve as many stars (status) next to their name on this board as full-timers who have fewer stars? I bet you agree with loyalty tests administered in many situations. A "part-time" Beatles' fan!? My friends, ex-wife, family and law partners would laugh at that and wonder what kind of person puts litmus tests on fanship? There is a lot of great Pop music out there and I learned a long time ago that it is a fool who plays it cool by making his world a little colder!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 20, 2015 12:22:01 GMT -5
Were you around in 1967John? Listening to music? I was. Sgt. Pepper was the biggest thing that happened in pop music that year. Ah yes, everyone followed Lou Reed that year.... And John Lennon's remark was aimed at Paul when they were in each other's faces after the breakup. It had nothing to do with the quality of the album. Like I said. You had to be there in 1967 to understand its impact. Dylan also worshipped The Beatles. Maybe he took a swipe at Pepper. Jealousy will do that to you. Sorry John, but Pepper was and is a big deal in the history of pop music... Sometimes your remarks on this board absolutely amaze me John. What influence from Pepper lasted beyond a year? Yes, Pepper made some people giddy at first. It didn't last, Rock and Roll largely went back to its Blues and C&W base by mid 1968. Revolver is one hundred times a better album than Pepper. I was 5 in 1967 what does that have to do with anything? You love Lewisohn's book but he wasn't present for one single episode he writes about! You were too young to understand nor appreciate Pepper when it was released. The everchanging Beatles moved beyond the simple pop song starting with songs on Revolver, and certainly on Pepper and later albums. The quality of the song, the instrumentation, the lyrics, the meloldies all progressed far beyond what had come before or what other groups were doing in 1966, save for some Bob Dylan tracks and Pet Sounds by Brian Wilson, that inspired The Beatles, specifically Paul, to move in the direction of Pepper. The album was so different at the time of its release in June, 1967, that many kids at first disliked it (see an American Bandstand where Dick Clark played some of the videos of Pepper and Penny Lane & Strawberry Fields which much of his audience didn't like and wanted more moptop 3 minute "Poppy" songs like had been on previous Beatle albums.) Look at the Monterey Pop festival in '67, Woodstock in '69 and see where progressive rock music was going during that period. Pepper was the beginning. It was the first rock album to win a Grammy Best Album of the year. Rock & Roll didn't go back to its Blues and C&W base. Some bands continued to play in that genre. The Stones, Creedance Clearwater, etc. It simply moved into yet another phase to be explored with Pepper. And The Beatles, as usual, were there to start it off in another direction. Whether you personally "liked" that direction is purely a matter of taste. But The Beatles were innovators. They took their influences like all other bands of the times, and molded them into their own unique style, whether it was Please, Please Me, She Loves You, And I Love Her, Yesterday, Norweigan Wood, In My Life, which were all songs with creative new ideas and finally to Pepper, where the entire album became a conceptually new idea and form; from the songs, to the album theme, to its album cover, to the costumes, to the lyrics printed on the back cover, to the technical wizardry achieved in the studio which was all but impossible to recreate on the stage at the time.But The Beatles were not interested in touring any more at that point. Been there, done that. Besides the incessant screaming fans, the technical abilities allowable for concertizing well in 1966 were just too limiting to accommodate a band like The Beatles and where their music was taking them. Read Allan Kozinn's chapter from his book "The Beatles" on Sgt. Pepper and what he has to say about the music and the albums influence on other bands of the times like The Who, and The Kinks for example. Like Lewisohn, he wasn't there, when the band recorded the album, but he sure is able to take the facts, in this case, the music, and point out what is great about the work and how it influenced the era and others. I am glad you feel Revolver is 100 times better than Pepper. For you that is accurate. Can't argue with you which is better. Because I am not you and you are not me. When it comes to what is better about any band, and any song, and any album, you are right, and I am right, and everyone else is also right about their opinions. Funny, but I see Pepper influence in The Beatles song "Free As A Bird" recorded in 1994. Even the false ending in it comes from "Strawberry Fields" which clearly grew out of the Pepper influence only a few months earlier. There is something First Generation Beatle Fans possess that all subsequent generations of fans will never possess; We were able to experience The Beatles as they progressed in real time from album to album in the 1960's. We would absorb each new album for what it was having only the previous albums before it to compare it to. So each new album, as it was released, was like stepping into a new room we hadn't been in before. And this went on for most of us for 5 or more years as the band moved through releasing it's catalogue. So when it came to Pepper in 1967, this was one of the most significant changes in pop music ever. When it all ended in 1970, it was like taking away the punch bowl or the end of summer vacation, or the end of Christmastime. The fun and thrill of what would come next from them was over. Subsequent generations got all the Beatle albums lumped together in a very short period of time when the band's music peaked their interest. So the impact of each one is lessened due to the short interval of time between hearing them and absorbing them, as well as hearing them away from the time and era in which they were created. And often newer generations hear the albums or the catalogue out of the order in which they were released. That is a great loss in my opinion. When I hear a Beatle song, it takes me right back to the era of that song, of what I was doing in that era, at a precise moment in that era. The song and the era are one in the same. You can't ever get that feeling when you have heard an album or song for the first time years after it was recorded and outside of the era it belongs to. You may remember what you were doing when you first hear a song, but it isn't the same when you were in a different time period from the songs beginning. So that is what I mean by "you had to be there" in 1967 when Pepper came out to understand what it was. Liking it now or not, is your choice. But rubbish it wasn't. And still isn't.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 20, 2015 12:23:55 GMT -5
Not disloyal John, I just see you as a part-time Beatles fan; part of you likes them, part of you doesn't.... Do part-timers deserve as many stars (status) next to their name on this board as full-timers who have fewer stars? I bet you agree with loyalty tests administered in many situations. A "part-time" Beatles' fan!? My friends, ex-wife, family and law partners would laugh at that and wonder what kind of person puts litmus tests on fanship? There is a lot of great Pop music out there and I learned a long time ago that it is a fool who plays it cool by making his world a little colder! Then how can you call Pepper rubbish?
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Sept 20, 2015 12:39:07 GMT -5
I don't consider the Rolling Stones a great album band. They didn't have the depth of songwriting that the Beatles did. I do consider them a great singles band though.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 20, 2015 14:03:50 GMT -5
I bet you agree with loyalty tests administered in many situations. A "part-time" Beatles' fan!? My friends, ex-wife, family and law partners would laugh at that and wonder what kind of person puts litmus tests on fanship? There is a lot of great Pop music out there and I learned a long time ago that it is a fool who plays it cool by making his world a little colder! Then how can you call Pepper rubbish? Here was my original quote, exactly as written: "....Pepper was as rubbish as The Beatles ever got." I then explained in subsequent post: "And I call Pepper rubbish within the context of the Beatles catalog; I still feel it is much better than most anyone else's efforts. It is like when we do those tourneys here where we rank the Beatles albums. "With The Beatles" and "Beatles For Sale" and maybe "Yellow Submarine" are always at the bottom yet we are not saying we hate them, we are just saying we love other albums more. We say, "They are all great but they all can't be #1!" I just think that other than the title song, "A Day In The Life." WALHFMF, and Lucy, the other songs are not ones society or even fans go to a lot, other Beatles' tunes get more traffic.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 20, 2015 14:58:06 GMT -5
Then how can you call Pepper rubbish? Here was my original quote, exactly as written: "....Pepper was as rubbish as The Beatles ever got." I then explained in subsequent post: "And I call Pepper rubbish within the context of the Beatles catalog; I still feel it is much better than most anyone else's efforts. It is like when we do those tourneys here where we rank the Beatles albums. "With The Beatles" and "Beatles For Sale" and maybe "Yellow Submarine" are always at the bottom yet we are not saying we hate them, we are just saying we love other albums more. We say, "They are all great but they all can't be #1!" I just think that other than the title song, "A Day In The Life." WALHFMF, and Lucy, the other songs are not ones society or even fans go to a lot, other Beatles' tunes get more traffic. The definition of the word rubbish is 1) Useless, or 2) Worthless. You are a lawyer so I am sure you are very careful with what words you use in context of your work. Do you really think the word applies to anything in Pepper or the album itself as Keith Richards implied? What bothered me was you saying you agreed with "Uncle Keith." The only Beatle "song" I can think of that the word could apply to is Revolution 9 on the White Album. And not to any Beatle album.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 20, 2015 17:01:11 GMT -5
... debjorgo, I can never tell if you are joking but after dismissing the four albums you go on to list some of the great songs on three of the four and those are the anchors, the iconic songs. The others are all great deep cuts and have been staples of FM radio since their release. Exile is a great album, like any double album there is so much to explore. It rocks all over the place. For 40 years I have heard and read from most Beatles fans who summarily diss the Stones(and all other groups/artists) but when we get past our xenophobic-like tendencies as Beatles nerds, it is sobering how good other bands and artists were/are and the Fabs don't have a monopoly on musical greatness. But that is good, right? I usually use a smiley face when I'm joking. Those albums were very good albums and the Stones have made some very great songs. The great songs stand out on an album because the rest of the album is usually lacking. Not bad songs but lacking. If you say their mid-sixties albums were better than the Beatles' albums from the same period, then I have to put each Stones' album, every track considered, on the Beatles' scale. They are so light on that scale. Putting your thumb on the scale doesn't change the true weight.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Sept 20, 2015 17:25:03 GMT -5
1. Beggars Banquet(1968); 2. Let It Bleed(1969): 3. Sticky Fingers (1971); and 4. Exile on Main St.(1972). Those 4 LPs are certainly The Stones' peak, and it remains one of the more impressive 4-in-a-row series of albums ever released. I personally find the Stones less and less interesting the older I get, mainly because (a) their best music (such as these albums) is largely derivative blues-based music, and I can get "the real thing" elsewhere, and (b) their post-1972 image, which is unbearable, especially in the past 25 years. You could say I consider The Beatles a lot more creative and original than The Stones. I respect what The Stones accomplished a lot, I just wish (as many do) that they'd retired in 1972.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Sept 21, 2015 4:14:36 GMT -5
Pepper's big problem is how incredibly innovative it was. It pretty much ripped up the rule book and wrote a new one, starting with sleeve design, inclusion of lyrics, cut out sheet, ripple design on inner sleeve etc., but going through segueing tracks together, the variety of instrumentation and arrangements on each song, use of sound effects, style of stereo mixing... it changed EVERYTHING.
So everyone went "Wow", and every other group jumped on the bandwagon and ripped off every innovation, to the extent that in no time flat they had all become clichés. And the Stones were first on the bandwagon with Satanic Majesties.
Pepper is so unfortunately timecapsuled in 1967 - the psychedelic aspects alone make sure of that - and it is doubly unfortunate that those who weren't actually there to appreciate it when it came out, as was said above, can never fully appreciate the impact it had. It may not have aged as well as other albums, it may sound more dated than some of the others, but that doesn't change in the slightest the fact (and I'm happy to state that it is a fact) that it is the single most significant, important and influential long playing record in the history of pop/rock music.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 21, 2015 6:23:50 GMT -5
Most of the new bands I like today have a psychedelic sound, the Black Angels, the Dead Weather, Band of Skulls....
Please Please Me, With the Beatles, Hard Days Night, everything up to Rubber Soul and Revolver, these are the albums that sound dated.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Sept 21, 2015 9:10:32 GMT -5
I don't consider the Rolling Stones a great album band. They didn't have the depth of songwriting that the Beatles did. I do consider them a great singles band though. Definitely agree. Their albums as a whole are not consistent. I just heard all of BEGGAR'S BANQUET for the first time, and aside from "Sympathy For The Devil", "Street Fighting Man" and possibly "Salt of the Earth", the rest of it was disposable rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Sept 21, 2015 9:16:35 GMT -5
Bob Dylan hated Pepper in 1967. Lou Reed hated Pepper in 1967. They were in the minority -- and who cares? Bob Dylan has no business commenting on a masterpiece like PEPPER, not with his style. And Lou Reed was a jerk who hated The Beatles, Period. Oh, John could have referenced anything to make his anti-Paul point in that song. I think the inspiration was to copy the band intro of PEPPER for Lennon's song. And even if John did resent PEPPER, who gives a crap? He's just another minority opinion.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Sept 21, 2015 9:18:51 GMT -5
[quote author=" Panther" I personally find the Stones less and less interesting the older I get, mainly because (a) their best music (such as these albums) is largely derivative blues-based music, and I can get "the real thing" elsewhere, and (b) their post-1972 image, which is unbearable, especially in the past 25 years. You could say I consider The Beatles a lot more creative and original than The Stones. I respect what The Stones accomplished a lot, I just wish (as many do) that they'd retired in 1972. [/quote] This is exactly how I feel about the Rolling Stones! See we do agree sometimes!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Sept 21, 2015 9:27:24 GMT -5
"The likes of a Keith Richards?" Joe, you are an astute lover of Rock And Roll, an avid collector and fan of certainly The Beatles(and maybe others) and by studying The Beatles you know a lot about other bands and I would say that next to Paul McCartney, Keith Richards might be the second in command of 1960's Rock Royalty still alive. I would place him above Mick Jagger even(but Mick is close to the top too). Keith's opinion on Pepper could be as valid and as important as anyone's!! Keith and Mick were always jealous of The Beatles, always "a day late and a dollar short" (to quote George Harrison in 1987). Keith's brains have been so scrambled by over-abuse of drugs that I pay him little mind. Nevertheless, you cannot be a Beatles Fan and call their classic SGT PEPPER "rubbish". You would think that there are no such absolutes in this world, but I think this is one of them. Sure, you can say PEPPER is not your favorite of their albums (it's not my favorite either)... but none of their original studio albums are "rubbish". But it needs to be judged in context of when it was released in June 1967... it was an innovative work of art that inspired all but a handful of current artists at that time. How so? The Beatles did their one-off psychedelic trip along with the MMT film, then it was off to do something different again, just as they'd always done.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Sept 21, 2015 9:32:03 GMT -5
Not disloyal John, I just see you as a part-time Beatles fan; part of you likes them, part of you doesn't.... That would seem to be the case. And no, that doesn't mean that a fan cannot be critical of The Beatles, nor does it require that they have to love all things Beatles equally. But to dismiss SGT PEPPER'S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND as "rubbish", it honestly does give one pause. (Sorry to JSD).
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Sept 21, 2015 9:35:33 GMT -5
Pepper's big problem is how incredibly innovative it was. It pretty much ripped up the rule book and wrote a new one, starting with sleeve design, inclusion of lyrics, cut out sheet, ripple design on inner sleeve etc., but going through segueing tracks together, the variety of instrumentation and arrangements on each song, use of sound effects, style of stereo mixing... it changed EVERYTHING. So everyone went "Wow", and every other group jumped on the bandwagon and ripped off every innovation, to the extent that in no time flat they had all become clichés. And the Stones were first on the bandwagon with Satanic Majesties. Pepper is so unfortunately timecapsuled in 1967 - the psychedelic aspects alone make sure of that - and it is doubly unfortunate that those who weren't actually there to appreciate it when it came out, as was said above, can never fully appreciate the impact it had. It may not have aged as well as other albums, it may sound more dated than some of the others, but that doesn't change in the slightest the fact (and I'm happy to state that it is a fact) that it is the single most significant, important and influential long playing record in the history of pop/rock music. Great post, vectis. I know we haven't agreed in some time lately -- but this is spot on.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 21, 2015 10:24:19 GMT -5
Joe, yesterday don't matter if its gone!
I acknowledge Pepper made a big splash, I have never denied that here, but some real heavy, contemporary hitters were not impressed including Bob Dylan, Lou Reed and Frank Zappa to name a few. There was a Pepper-backlash as soon as 1968 and by the Beatles themselves. If Pepper was the future, why did the Fabs go back to good old Rock and Roll for the latter part of their career?
I think looking at Pepper in the context of today is very important because we should not live in the past and while it is a beautiful relic from 1967, a year idealized(probably naively by the so-called Counter-Culture), I dare say albums like RS, R, White Album, AR and even LIB influence more artists and fans these past 40 years than Pepper.
I love my annual Pepper ritual of turning the lights down, opening a great bottle of wine(I don't do drugs so I can't drop LSD), clear the house and play Pepper all the way through, maybe even twice! That is a really enjoyable time, I compare it to a time machine or like stepping into a magical circus.
But for day-to-day listening in the car or anywhere else I grab any handful of other Beatles albums. I bet others do too!
And Joe there are people who love only early Beatles and don't like latter Beatles so it is not unreasonable for them to rate Peppper low and guess what, they are just as much fans as you, me or lowbasso because a lot of those fans were the Firsties at the Cavern or somewhere in Liverpool or fans who saw the boys in concert in 1963 to 1966 and that is their era.
One of the most successful Beatles tribute bands in the U.S. is 1964 The Tribute that caters to the group's original fans! Not a song from Pepper(or anything else after Revolver) will be heard!
My thoughts on Pepper are not any different than John Lennon's so that is good enough for me. I can sleep at night knowing that I don't get upset at differing opinions on the Fabs and Uncle Keith is okay with me, a pretty astute Rock and Roll historian in addition to one of the great 1960's musical icons right up there at the top with Paul.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Sept 21, 2015 11:30:34 GMT -5
I haven't read Keith's interview, but what does he think of SATANIC MAJESTIES? If SGT PEPPER is "rubbish" then what the heck are "Sing This All Together (See What Happens)" and "Gomper"?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 21, 2015 13:10:08 GMT -5
Joe, yesterday don't matter if its gone! I acknowledge Pepper made a big splash, I have never denied that here, but some real heavy, contemporary hitters were not impressed including Bob Dylan, Lou Reed and Frank Zappa to name a few. There was a Pepper-backlash as soon as 1968 and by the Beatles themselves. If Pepper was the future, why did the Fabs go back to good old Rock and Roll for the latter part of their career? I think looking at Pepper in the context of today is very important because we should not live in the past and while it is a beautiful relic from 1967, a year idealized(probably naively by the so-called Counter-Culture), I dare say albums like RS, R, White Album, AR and even LIB influence more artists and fans these past 40 years than Pepper. I love my annual Pepper ritual of turning the lights down, opening a great bottle of wine(I don't do drugs so I can't drop LSD), clear the house and play Pepper all the way through, maybe even twice! That is a really enjoyable time, I compare it to a time machine or like stepping into a magical circus. But for day-to-day listening in the car or anywhere else I grab any handful of other Beatles albums. I bet others do too! And Joe there are people who love only early Beatles and don't like latter Beatles so it is not unreasonable for them to rate Peppper low and guess what, they are just as much fans as you, me or lowbasso because a lot of those fans were the Firsties at the Cavern or somewhere in Liverpool or fans who saw the boys in concert in 1963 to 1966 and that is their era. One of the most successful Beatles tribute bands in the U.S. is 1964 The Tribute that caters to the group's original fans! Not a song from Pepper(or anything else after Revolver) will be heard! My thoughts on Pepper are not any different than John Lennon's so that is good enough for me. I can sleep at night knowing that I don't get upset at differing opinions on the Fabs and Uncle Keith is okay with me, a pretty astute Rock and Roll historian in addition to one of the great 1960's musical icons right up there at the top with Paul. You are right John to any opinion you want on Pepper or any other album. I only questioned using the term rubbish to describe it. Is that what you really think of Pepper when you have your annual Pepper Hearing in the dark with your glass of wine? I haven't played Revolution 9 off the White Album since hearing it once in 1968. So I would use the term rubbish to describe my opinion towards that track.....
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Sept 21, 2015 13:21:55 GMT -5
The thing about Pepper is that it wasn't really a "concept" album, but an album of separate songs two of which are loosely tied together by the Billy Shears trope and later by the mere inclusion of the reprise. Pepper itself wasn't rubbish, it Inspred everyone else to produce rubbish by grabbing onto discrete elements of Pepper- ragas and sitars, backward guitars an drums, nursery rhyme type lyrics and melodies, and orchestras, surreal lyrics, studio effects, etc. But no one could pull it off with class and style like the Beatles. The others just went overboard on a theme and by then the Beatles had moved on.
It's like the difference between the subtle use of Moog on Abbey Road and ELP.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Sept 21, 2015 13:39:35 GMT -5
Joe, yesterday don't matter if its gone! The Beatles always matter still -- and so does PEPPER, even though its style is of the time it was made. Now you've added Zappa? What's that, like strike FOUR? Who said it was the future? It was definitely fresh, new, exciting, and influential when it first arrived, though. And there are great songs on there still But how can you enjoy such "rubbish"? Me too -- though I do know some fans (young fans, actually) who feel their favorite album is PEPPER. Still, it's odd to hear a 'Beatles Fan' refer to the album as "rubbish". What are you talking about? I CLEARLY wrote that it's fine to have preferences/favorites -- but calling one of their regular studio LPs "rubbish" is out of a whole other universe, to me. Your mileage may vary. You're scrambling all over the place, John. That's not what we're talking about here. Whatever it takes to help you sleep, fine. I don't agree with every single thing Lennon ever said or did. And I don't believe he ever called PEPPER "rubbish" -- if he did, he was in his "let's squash the Beatles myth just to be outrageous" mode. You can have Keith as your uncle; I don't want him as mine. And you're trying to make this about "intolerance of differing opinions", when all I'm saying is that I don't expect a Beatles Fan to call SGT PEPPER 'rubbish' .
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Sept 21, 2015 16:50:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 21, 2015 17:36:13 GMT -5
In every interview I've ever heard Keith give, he has seemed very articulate, well composed and in sound mental health. He shows no signs of mental deterioration that effects so many as they reach that age. We're attributing that to his heavy drug use? Go figure.
He doesn't have to be in mental decline to say outrageous things to get attention for a new album release. Now if he starts twirking Alan Thick, I'll start worrying. I've got his new album in rotation with my other recent release. The song Trouble came up. Pretty rocking!
The Beatles never went back to anything. The White Album, Let it Be and Abbey Road was as different from the early stuff as was Sgt. Pepper.
John (Lennon) once said that Sgt. Pepper wasn't a concept album and that the songs on it could have been on any other album. I don't agree, but there is a lot of truth to it. Many of us here have pointed out that you could make a possibly better album by combining the best tracks from Revolver and Sgt. Pepper.
In 2067, the album will probably be celebrated by issuing Sgt. Pepper Reprise, an album of the best of the songs from the period.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Sept 21, 2015 17:50:21 GMT -5
Rubbish is too kind a word for the movie. It is a shame, because the Bee Gees and Frampton were hot, just a poorly conceived movie. I think it is safe to say that even a cameo at the end by the band itself would not have saved this.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Sept 21, 2015 18:19:38 GMT -5
...that doesn't change in the slightest the fact (and I'm happy to state that it is a fact) that it is the single most significant, important and influential long playing record in the history of pop/rock music. It's not hard to argue this when "significant", "important", and "influential" are all un-provable, subjective words, eh? In my opinion, the most influential and probably most important LP (I'm talking about rock music and its derivations) in US history is Meet The Beatles. The influence this had on music culture is incalculable. Whereas, after 1973, Pepper's influence waned and was pretty much gone forever, the influence of Meet The Beatles is still fresh today. It's felt in Big Star, The Ramones, punk, Britpop, all indie bands, Nirvana, even boy bands.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 21, 2015 19:52:14 GMT -5
If I am listening to anything on Meet the Beatles other than I Saw Her Standing There in my car, I am NOT rolling the windows down. About every other song on Pepper, sure.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 21, 2015 23:48:17 GMT -5
"The likes of a Keith Richards?" Joe, you are an astute lover of Rock And Roll, an avid collector and fan of certainly The Beatles(and maybe others) and by studying The Beatles you know a lot about other bands and I would say that next to Paul McCartney, Keith Richards might be the second in command of 1960's Rock Royalty still alive. I would place him above Mick Jagger even(but Mick is close to the top too). Keith's opinion on Pepper could be as valid and as important as anyone's!! Keith and Mick were always jealous of The Beatles, always "a day late and a dollar short" (to quote George Harrison in 1987). From our resident anti-George Harrison guy! I am and I can and I did! See MarkC's post, it inspired more rubbish! As you said, it was one-off, a dead end! Thank Allah they went back to Rock and Roll!
|
|