|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 22, 2015 0:10:21 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. Dylan, Reed and Zappa are only marginal in your world.Busted! I am outed as an Elvis fan!Hey read what I write, I am referring to the very real group of Beatles fans who dislike the direction of the band after 1965 or 1966. They do think Pepper is drug-induced crap yet they love and defend the early Beatles as much as anyone. So they are not "real fans?"See above. Why is there a huge market for a tribute band that stops at Revolver? Thank you Joe, you said it better than anyone, an "intolerance of differing opinions."
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 22, 2015 0:21:00 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. Wings Wild Life is the ultimate roll down the car windows album!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Sept 22, 2015 0:34:06 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. Wings Wild Life is the ultimate roll down the car windows album! "Life With the Lions"!!!
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Sept 22, 2015 3:37:12 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. It was never a concept album, it was a show - on record, because they weren't on the road any more, so the album could go instead of them.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Sept 22, 2015 3:53:10 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. Fair comment even though I don't wholly agree (I'd draw a distinction between sociological impact (MTB) and musical/recording/presentation (Pepper). As a Brit, MTB isn't really on my radar, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Sept 22, 2015 6:28:20 GMT -5
Dylan, Reed and Zappa are only marginal in your world. No, no --- Bob Dylan is not marginal in my world; if you go back to what I wrote, I said that given Dylan's STYLE, it's not surprising he'd have no use for PEPPER. But Dylan is one of the Greats in my book, for different things largely not pertaining to The Beatles' sounds. (There are other people who think that all three of these guys - and even The Beatles - are marginal, though; so it's not an individual thing). Once again, I am not referring to "preference". That's entirely different. I rarely hear about Beatles Fans who ONLY listen to the early music. I do, however, know there are fans who PREFER the earlier music. Whatever way, I have NEVER heard any of them call the later stuff "crap". This is your exaggeration. But I'd be consistent in saying that if any of those people actually did call any period of The Beatles' music "Crap" (or "rubbish") --- then no, they are not true Beatles Fans, in my view. Just my opinion. Just partial fans. What is this supposed to prove? So the tribute band "1964" prefers to carve out a marketing niche for themselves where they only go up to 1964 and celebrate the core years of Beatlemania--- so what? I would bet they still like later Beatles music too. But there are TONS of other Beatles tribute bands who do it all, so I see this as a non-issue. Is it fair to say that you are intolerant of the opinion that a true Beatles Fan cannot consider SGT PEPPER "rubbish"? It's okay, John -I do believe you are a partial Beatles Fan!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Sept 22, 2015 6:35:12 GMT -5
Former President Bush said the Beatles were alright until they got weird. In the same interview, he was happy to point out that he had the Archies on his iPod.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Sept 22, 2015 6:40:57 GMT -5
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 certainly not "anti-George Harrison" (there you go again, exaggerating). George is my least-favorite Beatle, though. Even if I was "anti-George", I would still think he made a very apt quote there about Mick. I'm not one of those people who just blindly or unconditionally disregards everything a person may say just because they're not my favorite. Even if Osama Bin Laden had observed that Mick was always a day late and a dollar short behind The Beatles, I'd say he was spot on. Some of the music it inspired was poor, but some of it was very good. (John Fred and His Playboy Band's "Judy In Disguise (With Glasses)" is hands down one of my favorite songs ever recorded). However -- back to SGT PEPPER -- while it's not my personal favorite, I do like every single song on the album. And you, Sir...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2015 6:57:18 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. Wings Wild Life is the ultimate roll down the car windows album! If i had Wings Wild Life in the car and i rolled the window down, i'd throw it out. And then i'd wind the window up so it couldn't boomerang back.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 22, 2015 8:06:07 GMT -5
It's okay, John -I do believe you are a partial Beatles Fan! You better smile saying that! We are all going to be partial Beatles fans as John and now George's legacies are being erased. It is like that wonderful graphic in Anthology where they take the group line-up in Hamburg and make first Stu then Pete disappear and replace them with Ringo! But now all get erased except Paul!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 22, 2015 8:32:29 GMT -5
I have asked Steve to develop a litmus test to determine who are "Whole Beatles" fans and "Partial Beatles" fans. Discrimination against the latter would not only be tolerated but encouraged.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Sept 22, 2015 9:11:40 GMT -5
I have asked Steve to develop a litmus test to determine who are "Whole Beatles" fans and "Partial Beatles" fans. That's all a matter of people's own minds and up to their own personal opinions. How about if I consider you a 95% Beatles Fan?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 22, 2015 10:29:41 GMT -5
I have asked Steve to develop a litmus test to determine who are "Whole Beatles" fans and "Partial Beatles" fans. That's all a matter of people's own minds and up to their own personal opinions. How about if I consider you a 95% Beatles Fan? I thought our number of stars determined that......
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 23, 2015 9:56:25 GMT -5
I will back off calling Pepper rubbish if I can in peace call it "dated," "overrated at the time," "an artistic dead-end" and "self-important."
I think that is a happy compromise!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 24, 2015 13:33:27 GMT -5
Despite our mudslinging among ourselves, it is fascinating to read both the incredible praise for SPLHCB in 1967 and also the rather quick reassessment by the Rock critics. Here is a link to RICHARD GOLDSTEIN'S infamous, almost sole, negative review of SPLHCB published in the NYT on June 18, 1967. screwrocknroll.tumblr.com/post/482115454/we-still-need-the-beatles-butI will summarize some things found in Wikipedia under SPLHCB under the section "Reappraisal." Although Richard Goldstein was vilified in 1967, writer Greil Marcus asserted in 1979 that, "by 1968 the album appeared vacuous against the emotional backdrop of the political and social upheavals of American life", the war in Vietnam, the killings of Dr. King and Bobby Kennedy. Lester Bangs bluntly wrote "Goldstein was right in his much-vilified review ... predicting that this record had the power to almost singlehandedly destroy rock and roll." Music journalist Robert Christgau is quoted there to say: "Although Sgt. Pepper is thought of as the most influential of all rock masterpieces, it is really only the most famous. In retrospect it seems peculiarly apollonian – precise, controlled, even stiff – and it is clearly peripheral to the rock mainstream." And I guess Keith Richards would agree with musicologist John Kimsey who: "Cites the preservation of authenticity as a guiding tenet of rock music and suggests that many purists denounce Sgt. Pepper in that respect, accusing the album of 'mark[ing] a fall from primal grace into pretense, production and self-consciousness.',,,,,,,,The LP is less a breakthrough and more a "break with all that's good, true and rocking". In fairness the early reviews of SPLHCB were stunning except by Goldstein so it would be fun to read the 1967 reviews by Kenneth Tynan, Richard Poirier, Jack Kroll and Wilfrid Mellers. But please do not just curse at me or throw stones at me but read the Goldstein piece above as I had known of that negative review from as early as its reference in 1977's The Beatles Forever but had never read it in full. My critics here on this Board are certainly right about SPLHCB's reception in 1967 but maybe Keith Richards and I are correct in asserting its place in Rock and Roll as early as 1968!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 24, 2015 23:53:38 GMT -5
Despite our mudslinging among ourselves, it is fascinating to read both the incredible praise for SPLHCB in 1967 and also the rather quick reassessment by the Rock critics. Here is a link to RICHARD GOLDSTEIN'S infamous, almost sole, negative review of SPLHCB published in the NYT on June 18, 1967. screwrocknroll.tumblr.com/post/482115454/we-still-need-the-beatles-butI will summarize some things found in Wikipedia under SPLHCB under the section "Reappraisal." Although Richard Goldstein was vilified in 1967, writer Greil Marcus asserted in 1979 that, "by 1968 the album appeared vacuous against the emotional backdrop of the political and social upheavals of American life", the war in Vietnam, the killings of Dr. King and Bobby Kennedy. Lester Bangs bluntly wrote "Goldstein was right in his much-vilified review ... predicting that this record had the power to almost singlehandedly destroy rock and roll." Music journalist Robert Christgau is quoted there to say: "Although Sgt. Pepper is thought of as the most influential of all rock masterpieces, it is really only the most famous. In retrospect it seems peculiarly apollonian – precise, controlled, even stiff – and it is clearly peripheral to the rock mainstream." And I guess Keith Richards would agree with musicologist John Kimsey who: "Cites the preservation of authenticity as a guiding tenet of rock music and suggests that many purists denounce Sgt. Pepper in that respect, accusing the album of 'mark[ing] a fall from primal grace into pretense, production and self-consciousness.',,,,,,,,The LP is less a breakthrough and more a "break with all that's good, true and rocking". In fairness the early reviews of SPLHCB were stunning except by Goldstein so it would be fun to read the 1967 reviews by Kenneth Tynan, Richard Poirier, Jack Kroll and Wilfrid Mellers. But please do not just curse at me or throw stones at me but read the Goldstein piece above as I had known of that negative review from as early as its reference in 1977's The Beatles Forever but had never read it in full. My critics here on this Board are certainly right about SPLHCB's reception in 1967 but maybe Keith Richards and I are correct in asserting its place in Rock and Roll as early as 1968! Nowhere in any of the negative reviews you posted did I see a reference to the album being described as rubbish. That is an extremely strong word implying something that is useless or worthless. The Beatles are considered the greatest rock band ever because they were not only gifted musically with their innate songwriting and performing abilities, but they were always ever-changing, moving into new directions with their music, always staying ahead of their peers in the business. That kind of ability will always invite negative criticism from those who prefer the status quo. The Beatles took chances, opened new doors. Not everyone is comfortable with change. Not everyone wants change. Negative criticism does not always imply failure. Rubbish is a word used to imply something of absolutely no value or use to anyone or anything. It has no place even in a negative critique. Especially when it involves a musical group trying to do its best, even if it is in a new and unfamiliar direction. As a performer in the musical arts, albeit classical field for 38 years, I hold the following quote close to me as I pursue my work; “Caring too much who approves or disapproves is the death of your art form.” I like to think this is something The Beatles also espoused. Otherwise, they could have stopped with Please, Please Me. So print criticism aside, only you and Keith Richards seem to use such strong language as rubbish in reference to Pepper. I don't think anyone else you mentioned above put it in that severe a term in asserting its place in Rock & Roll.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 25, 2015 17:11:46 GMT -5
That's why I don't use "rubbish" anymore as explained above. But kindly old Keith is from the Lester Bangs school that Pepper nearly killed Rock and Roll and Keifer lives and breathes Rock and Roll so you can maybe understand why he is so ant-Pepper. With my discovery of the Avett Brothers and modern Americana folk music, I am more into songs with honest lyrics that express honest emotions and not artsy fartsy stuff like most of Pepper. Other Beatles' albums ring much truer to me, both pre and post Pepper. Hey it was kind of fun for them, or Paul at least, to pretend to be someone else for an album but there is a fine line between Sgt. Pepper and Chris Gaines!
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Sept 26, 2015 7:50:02 GMT -5
And there were those of us who loved it because music hall, glamour and fantasy is more to our taste than rock'n'roll, grit and reality.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 27, 2015 1:42:57 GMT -5
And there were those of us who loved it because music hall, glamour and fantasy is more to our taste than rock'n'roll, grit and reality. Hey vectis, can you re-post here those photos of you from the early 1970's when you went "Glam" and loved T-Rex and Bowie? Please!!!
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Sept 27, 2015 6:13:51 GMT -5
I hated Bolan and was never fond of Bowie. You must be thinking of someone else.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Oct 2, 2015 22:43:37 GMT -5
I'm getting my copy of Keith's new disc at Best Buy. They have a bonus track on their disc. I like the one album of his that I bought. I'm not sure why I didn't get the second one. The disc is getting great reviews. It's supposedly his best yet. I feel a No 1 debut on this. Aaaaah, it fell short. Keith debuted at No. 11. It'll be interesting to see how fast if drops out of the top twenty. I guess it might go up(?). Davis Gilmore's new album, another I thought might have a shot at the 1 spot, debuted at No. 5.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 24, 2016 10:19:25 GMT -5
Well, as a feminist woman,I don't like or obviously approve of what they did in their personal lives,using all of those young groupie women for their sexual pleasure How about the women who only used The Beatles because they were The Beatles? They made themselves available.. it's not like The Beatles forced themselves on them.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 24, 2016 23:13:25 GMT -5
Well, as a feminist woman,I don't like or obviously approve of what they did in their personal lives,using all of those young groupie women for their sexual pleasure How about the women who only used The Beatles because they were The Beatles? They made themselves available.. it's not like The Beatles forced themselves on them. I would gladly agree to being used! Patti Boyd or Heather Mills, if you see this be my guest in using and abusing me!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2016 7:06:56 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. Wings Wild Life is the ultimate roll down the car windows album! [/i] Wings Wild Life, is it true only 2 people bought it, JSD and the Lovely Linda.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 25, 2016 11:19:32 GMT -5
Wings Wild Life is the ultimate roll down the car windows album! Wings Wild Life, is it true only 2 people bought it, JSD and the Lovely Linda. Hey fabfour! Be nice!
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jan 26, 2016 4:19:52 GMT -5
Wings Wild Life, is it true only 2 people bought it, JSD and the Lovely Linda. 3. Me too. Bought on vinyl, also on CD. Played it loads when it came out, was always disappointed, still am. It is a grade above shite, but only slightly.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 26, 2016 10:14:24 GMT -5
Wings Wild Life, is it true only 2 people bought it, JSD and the Lovely Linda. 3. Me too. Bought on vinyl, also on CD. Played it loads when it came out, was always disappointed, still am. It is a grade above shite, but only slightly. Oh vectisfabber! You cannot help but be contrary!
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jan 26, 2016 11:51:55 GMT -5
Yes I can!
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Feb 1, 2016 1:51:40 GMT -5
It's only just dawned on me that Pepper is quite possibly The Beatles album I play least. I play Let It Be more.
|
|