Serious? Or just trying to stir controversy?

GO TO ADMIN PANEL > ADD-ONS AND INSTALL VERTIFORO SIDEBAR TO SEE FORUMS AND SIDEBAR

antiditz

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
639
Points
0
Location
NYC
This was an interesting and somewhat provoking read:

Sgt Pepper must die!

Ever get the feeling you've been cheated? It's meant to be a classic album, but all you can hear is a load of boring tripe ... we've all felt that way. And so have the musicians we asked to nominate the supposedly great records they'd gladly never hear again
We're talking some landmark albums by Nirvana, Arcade Fire, The Doors, The Beach Boys, Pink Floyd, among others. Apparently, some music-heads think they suck, despite their popularity and acclaim. Full article here.
 

pohatu771

A Bit Outdated
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
1,522
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Byron, NY
I'm a Beatles fan, and as great as Sgt. Pepper's is, I prefer the stripped-down sounds of The Beatles and Let It Be (in addition to the pre-1966 works). Well, what Let It Be was supposed to be...

I'm an old-fashioned rock and roll guy- as much as I love some of the Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper's tracks, the simple guitar-guitar-bass-drum sound will always be my favourite.

Though the piano-driven songs are some of my favourites- I performed Hey Jude two weeks ago, it's that early sound I like best.
 
Last edited:

Razor70

New member
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
330
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Illinois
Well different people can have varying opinions when it comes to albums/bands. I am a Beatles fan and I enjoy Sgt. Pepper's...but I don't think it was their best album. I too agree with pohatu771 that I think Let It Be was really one of there best albums. It was really the last album that they worked on as a group in whole, and I think it shows.
 

kylo4

New member
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
1,662
Points
0
Location
Ontario, Canada
I agree, Sgt Pepper shouldn't have been named the best album of all time by Rolling Stone followed by "Pet Sounds". Don't get me wrong, I like the Beatles, but Abbey Road, Let it Be and Revolver are all better. Pet Sounds was actually one of the most boring albums I've heard from the Beach Boys. My dad grew up in that era and he said the album wasn't good either. It has 3 good songs on it.
 

mrdantownsend

mrdantownsend
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
2,497
Points
0
Location
New Jersey
Website
www.freewebs.com
Who the hell listens to Rolling Stone has to say anyway?

Mainstream Addicted Boppy Teen Kids?

Not saying the album is bad either.

The point is it's a classic, and classics need to be heard, whether or not a bunch of nitwits from wherever think its not good.
 

papayaninja

Better Than Cats
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
2,308
Points
0
Age
31
Website
www.google.com
Pet Sounds is excellent. The only one I've heard, know enough to agree with and actually do agree with, is Dark Side of the Moon. There are way better Pink Floyd albums. Animals and Wish You Were Here, namely.
 

toothpaste

New member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
3,585
Points
0
Location
New York City
The Beatles while being a good band have been so over hyped that I cant' listen to them anymore. Additionally, claiming that their Sgt. pepper was the best album of all time negates so many other much more musically accomplished artists. The beatles were good, not great. Most definitely not the greatest. Someone finally that shares an opinion that is not so status quo.
 

bdb

On the B side of life
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
4,223
Points
0
Age
63
Location
Portland, OR
It amazed me how many I agreed with. Some of the writing is just fantastic.

I find it solidly unattractive, texturally nasty, a bit harmonically and melodically dull, bombastic and melodramatic, and the rhythms are pedestrian.
(the Arcade Fire was an odd addition there anyway, being a new album rather than a so-called 'classic')

I really don't know why certain albums receive so much long-term notoriety and some other great albums don't. The biggest problem with "best ever" lists is that they just end up focusing on hyped albums. And just because its hyped (or even significant from a rock history perspective) doesn't mean that everyone will enjoy it.
 

neb

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
1,834
Points
0
I like Sgt. Pepper, not as much as some of the other works by The Beatles, and certainly not as much as I like some other bands. I have always been unable to fathom as to why it is so highly regarded. I suppose it is the whole package, the album art, the concept album story etc. etc. It is possible that the author wanted to create a stir as to further their reputation, but that is not to say that many others would agree. There is just no point hating for the sake of hating.

Another anniversary passed recently: It has been ten years since the release of OK Computer. This record is in the same heavyweight division as Sgt. Pepper, and often crops up in lists and journalistic features like this one.
 

kylo4

New member
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
1,662
Points
0
Location
Ontario, Canada
mrdantownsend said:
Who the hell listens to Rolling Stone has to say anyway?

Mainstream Addicted Boppy Teen Kids?

Not saying the album is bad either.

The point is it's a classic, and classics need to be heard, whether or not a bunch of nitwits from wherever think its not good.
Excuse me, you do realize Rolling Stone is one of the most reputable and influential music publications of all time and has been around since 1967 don't you? That they've interviewed and featured everyone from Dylan to the Beatles, and have had more classic covers than how old you are + are regarded as one of the best music magazines of all time? It was an honour, not a privilege, to get the cover of Rolling Stone. They know what they're writing about, especially since when they named the 500 Best Albums of all time they polled over 1000 music industry veterans and alums.

What makes it a classic anyway? What one finds gold, others don't like. I can't stand Pet Sounds and I like the Beach Boys, so its not as if I hate them and think they're bad. It just doesn't deserve to be named the second best album of all time when there are thousands and thousands of albums out there.
 
Last edited:

neb

New member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
1,834
Points
0
Rolling Stone might be as old as its readers. but that doesn't carry with the younger crowd. It is dated and inward looking; the absolute pits when it comes to music journalism.

I swear they sit round table with the following conversation:
"So, as you all know we are running the greatest 1000 conceptual albums of all time feature in six months time, does anyone have any nominations?"
"Well, bearing in mind Jimi won the best guitarist feature; Dylan the greatest lyricist; Beatles the greatest band; that makes it Rolling Stones' turn to win something."
"Gosh! Has the cycle come round that quickly?"
"Rolling Stones it is."
"Wait! Did The Rolling Stones even have a concept album?"
"Nah, not really, but it's their turn to come top in one of our ridiculously haphazard polls, you cannot argue with the cycle!"
"Fair enough"

EDIT: O, then there is their turgid articles on promising bands such as Razorlight and others of similar ilk. The whole publication is stuck in a time warp. That's it, I'm leaving it there before I get too carried away.
 
Last edited:

kylo4

New member
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
1,662
Points
0
Location
Ontario, Canada
The UK's got Spin, that's even worse. Were it not for Rolling Stone I wouldn't of found out about any of my favourite artists like: Regina Spektor, Fiona Apple, Yeah Yeah Yeahs etc. They do good work. As a reader for three years their articles are in depth, informative, and reviews agreeable.

The Rolling Stones have been mentioned several times and have gotten several covers.
 

Kristiano

He hates Scousers
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
6,328
Points
36
kylo4 said:
The UK's got Spin, that's even worse. Were it not for Rolling Stone I wouldn't of found out about any of my favourite artists like: Regina Spektor, Fiona Apple, Yeah Yeah Yeahs etc. They do good work. As a reader for three years their articles are in depth, informative, and reviews agreeable.

The Rolling Stones have been mentioned several times and have gotten several covers.

I wouldn't say that their reviews are necessarily agreeable, I prefer to refer to the internet for reviews.

But if you want to talk about feature profiles, I don't think that anyone out there does it better than them. Add on the access that only RS has and you can see why, for all the talk about how supposedly "crap" RS is, they still have a circulation of 1.2 to 1.3 million.
 

kylo4

New member
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
1,662
Points
0
Location
Ontario, Canada
Kristiano said:
I wouldn't say that their reviews are necessarily agreeable, I prefer to refer to the internet for reviews.

But if you want to talk about feature profiles, I don't think that anyone out there does it better than them. Add on the access that only RS has and you can see why, for all the talk about how supposedly "crap" RS is, they still have a circulation of 1.2 to 1.3 million.
Oh you're right for that, but I don't even read reviews. I sample the album or know the artist. But I've written my own reviews before reading the Rolling Stone ones pointing out the best songs and 3 times now they've written to get the exact same songs that I've written about before reading their review (sometimes I've written reviews that did this that they didn't release the issue for 2-3 weeks after). That's agreeable for me. I want to be a music journalist, and so that's my bible.
 

papayaninja

Better Than Cats
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
2,308
Points
0
Age
31
Website
www.google.com
From what I've seen and on a thread I posted a year or so ago, all the best music magazines are British, and if you aren't in the UK they are ridiculously expensive (read 'Mojo'.)
 

antiditz

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
639
Points
0
Location
NYC
Sgt. Pepper... may not be the Beatles' best, but is it really an overall awful album? And would it be considered that 'awful' if not in comparison to their other works? In fact, some of the 'reviewers' admit they are fans of the band in question, just not the specific album. I think this is allowable for any band, but does this mean the albums are as bad as 'they'd gladly never hear again?' Or are they only as objectionable for their exalted status?

I also think it's funny (and bold! admirably bold!) how some of these guys are young upstart-ish people in the music world, yet here they are judging and basically castigating these revered works.
 

bdb

On the B side of life
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
4,223
Points
0
Age
63
Location
Portland, OR
That's a good point - it isn't that the albums are so terribly awful, just over-hyped and overplayed.

The albums I'd really rather not hear for the rest of my life would be stuff like David Hasselhoff. That album that Eddie Murphy made in the 80s could pass as a method of torture.
 
Top