Remove one from the top 100, and add one. Which do you pick?

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
AfterHours



Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

  • #51
  • Posted: 03/23/2017 05:03
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
TheHutts wrote:
I'm just trying to unpack why the best ever albums chart ends up middle-brow, while a classical chart is often high-brow.


I think it has a lot to do with Rock's very greatest artists being promoted (by critics, etc) as The Beatles and Elvis, both of whom were very talented and good at what they did, but are these really the epitome of art in the history of Rock?

I suppose it's a matter of ideals. If one considers a masterpiece as the most awe-inspiring, creative, profound and powerful music, then of course not.

If one considers an album masterpiece to be something along the lines of: consistently good, catchy, charismatic songs (and in The Beatles case with their later albums) some added doses of creativity to keep it fresh, then I can see Elvis/The Beatles ranking pretty high in that regard.

For me, and I think most serious Classical listeners (and probably many Jazz listeners too), a masterpiece is something much more ambitious than what The Beatles and Elvis were trying to do.

I think people start down a more "high-brow" path in Rock (and much more powerful and rewarding music/albums imo) when they follow lineage and influences from artists such as The Doors, The Velvet Underground and Bob Dylan, as opposed to The Beatles and Elvis.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad



Location: Ground Control
United States

  • #52
  • Posted: 03/23/2017 06:28
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
AfterHours wrote:
I think it has a lot to do with Rock's very greatest artists being promoted (by critics, etc) as The Beatles and Elvis, both of whom were very talented and good at what they did, but are these really the epitome of art in the history of Rock?

I suppose it's a matter of ideals. If one considers a masterpiece as the most awe-inspiring, creative, profound and powerful music, then of course not.

If one considers an album masterpiece to be something along the lines of: consistently good, catchy, charismatic songs (and in The Beatles case with their later albums) some added doses of creativity to keep it fresh, then I can see Elvis/The Beatles ranking pretty high in that regard.

For me, and I think most serious Classical listeners (and probably many Jazz listeners too), a masterpiece is something much more ambitious than what The Beatles and Elvis were trying to do.

I think people start down a more "high-brow" path in Rock (and much more powerful and rewarding music/albums imo) when they follow lineage and influences from artists such as The Doors, The Velvet Underground and Bob Dylan, as opposed to The Beatles and Elvis.


I agree mostly with what you are saying (like 95%).

Elvis to me has no real artistic aesthetic above your typical rhythm and blues, and even then he was just a great performer, not a great songwriter.

The Beatles were completely different and I think just as much on par with the Doors, The Velvet Underground and Bob Dylan, WHEN THEY WANTED TO BE. I mean The Doors could be very artistic, but they also had just as many pop songs as the next group (same as VU). I think The Beatles were just the same. Even Beach Boys musically (maybe only a few songs lyrically) dabbled into an aesthetic beyond "just pop" with Pet Sounds.

I suppose the question then for me at least is:

What will be considered masterpieces 100 years from now? While it really just is pop music, I feel like The Beatles really will be treated like Beethoven in 200 years. Not only because of their cultural impact (there are volumes written about them, generations after generations still rave about them, yada yada yada, they were the first to do EVERYTHING... hahah, even if not really at all, that's kind of become the accepted history of music, etc.), but also because their music really is something that is already studied at university amongst musicians (it's a thing at the School of Music at USC at least). They already are accepted as greater than a pop group. Heck I've heard Stockhausen wanted to collaborate with the Beatles. I blame George Martin for anything musically having a greater aesthetic than pop music, and to be honest, but I blame John and Paul's search for art in the lyric to have a greater aesthetic than just pop music. For this conversation, pop music is like Britney Spears or similar.

But I obviously realize they are a pop group (who went above and beyond just being a pop group).

So while maybe the thought of them is "but [whose] scope far lesser depths of emotion/concept/creativity in their compositions", it might actually not be completely accurate in all aspects of their work. Have you heard much about Paul's dribble in Avant Garde stuff, and John wanting to be an artist first, musician second.

Of course I'm NOT talking about anything they released before Revolver... but the albums after that do have (in my opinion and based on what I've read/experienced/gain deeper understanding and knowledge of had possibly more emotion/concept/creativity in their compositions than giving credit? A Day In The Life, She's Leaving Home, Penny Lane, (Paul talks about playing with surrealism here), Tomorrow Never Knows, Revolution 9... Idk... can these songs really be just pop songs with no depth?

Penny Lane seems simple enough right, but there are musical intricacies as written in wikipedia here:
The song has a double tonic structure of B major verse (in I-vi-ii-V cycles) and A major chorus connected by formal pivoting dominant chords.[14] In the opening bars in B major, after singing "In Penny Lane" (in an F#-B-C#-D# melody note ascent) McCartney sings the major third of the first chord in the progression (on "Lane") and major 7th (on "barber") then switches to a Bm chord, singing the flattened 3rd notes (on "know" with a i7 [Bm7] chord) and flattened 7th notes (on "come and go" [with a ♭VImaj7 [Gmaj7] chord] and "say hello" [with a V7sus4 [F#7sus4] chord]).[15] This has been described as a profound and surprising innovation involving abandoning mid-cycle what initially appears to be a standard I-vi-ii-V Doo Wop pop chord cycle.[16] To get from the verse "In the pouring rain - very strange" McCartney uses an E chord as a pivot, (it is a IV chord in the preceding B key and a V in the looming A key) to take listeners back into the chorus ("Penny Lane is in my ears ..."). Likewise to get back from the chorus of "There beneath the blue suburban skies I sit, and meanwhile back ... , McCartney uses an F#7 pivot chord (which is a VI in the old A key and a V in the new B key). The lyrics "very strange" and "meanwhile back" can be viewed as hinting at these complex tonal changes.


I don't know... I mean I TOTALLY get if you are listening to anything pre-Revolver you'd say, yeah, the Beatles and Backstreet Boys are basically the same band, different generation. And I'd totally agree with you. But that's actually what I love about The Beatles - they were a cover band, a boy band, and a pop group who also wrote avaunt garde music, and pushed boundaries both in pop music and ALL music. And they were the first to do everything (sarcasm) Laughing .

On another note I suppose it all depends on the definition of a masterpiece. I think according to some Louis Armstrong's version of "what a wonderful world" is a masterpiece and to others it's just a pop song.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
AfterHours



Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

  • #53
  • Posted: 03/23/2017 09:23
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Quote:
The Beatles were completely different and I think just as much on par with the Doors, The Velvet Underground and Bob Dylan, WHEN THEY WANTED TO BE. I mean The Doors could be very artistic, but they also had just as many pop songs as the next group (same as VU). I think The Beatles were just the same. Even Beach Boys musically (maybe only a few songs lyrically) dabbled into an aesthetic beyond "just pop" with Pet Sounds.


Personally, I disagree. The primary difference is a matter of emotional/conceptual resonance and purpose. The Velvet Underground and The Doors (with their best albums and songs) were creating immersive emotional/conceptual episodes and environments, at times very elaborately so, intricately conceived, with each instrument and vocalization contributing to the whole picture, many of them very hyper-realistic, physical, tactile, colorful, resonant, a whole new reality of music -- a multi-faceted realism, theater and drama that had not occurred in Rock music before.

Quote:
What will be considered masterpieces 100 years from now? While it really just is pop music, I feel like The Beatles really will be treated like Beethoven in 200 years. Not only because of their cultural impact (there are volumes written about them, generations after generations still rave about them, yada yada yada, they were the first to do EVERYTHING... hahah, even if not really at all, that's kind of become the accepted history of music, etc.), but also because their music really is something that is already studied at university amongst musicians (it's a thing at the School of Music at USC at least). They already are accepted as greater than a pop group. Heck I've heard Stockhausen wanted to collaborate with the Beatles. I blame George Martin for anything musically having a greater aesthetic than pop music, and to be honest, but I blame John and Paul's search for art in the lyric to have a greater aesthetic than just pop music. For this conversation, pop music is like Britney Spears or similar.


I very strongly doubt this will be the case. If so, they will be the first artists in the history of all art to be revered that long despite not creating art that was especially profound/displayed considerable emotional/conceptual significance. And, no they will never be considered (by serious music historians and the like) anything remotely approaching Beethoven's masterpieces. Never have, never will. I think it is much more likely that they will gradually drop out of favor over the coming few decades as music continues moving forward and they appear increasingly dated and lacking in substance. There's very little, if any, worthwhile music being made these days bearing their stamp in any prominent way. There's been tons and tons of incredible music being made, especially since the 80s and 90s, that owes A LOT to The Doors, Bob Dylan, The Velvet Underground, Neil Young, and other seminal, more emotionally resonant artists, and this shows no real signs of slowing down.

Quote:
So while maybe the thought of them is "but [whose] scope far lesser depths of emotion/concept/creativity in their compositions", it might actually not be completely accurate in all aspects of their work. Have you heard much about Paul's dribble in Avant Garde stuff, and John wanting to be an artist first, musician second.

Of course I'm NOT talking about anything they released before Revolver... but the albums after that do have (in my opinion and based on what I've read/experienced/gain deeper understanding and knowledge of had possibly more emotion/concept/creativity in their compositions than giving credit? A Day In The Life, She's Leaving Home, Penny Lane, (Paul talks about playing with surrealism here), Tomorrow Never Knows, Revolution 9... Idk... can these songs really be just pop songs with no depth?


Yes, if you're picking their very best songs, they certainly do have depth. Even their worst songs have some, if minor, depth. I don't think that was the argument. The thing is, it's all relative. The Beatles later albums are rather impressive compared to other mundane pop acts and their own pre-1966 albums, but how do they compare, really, to Mozart? Bach? Beethoven? Wagner? Brahms? Mahler? Does the Beatles music go into elaborate depth and investigate emotions/concepts on the order of Mahler's 9th Symphony? Vivaldi's Four Seasons? Bach's Goldberg Variations? Beethoven's Piano Sonatas or String Quartets? The chasm is massive...

Quote:
Penny Lane seems simple enough right, but there are musical intricacies as written in wikipedia here:
The song has a double tonic structure of B major verse (in I-vi-ii-V cycles) and A major chorus connected by formal pivoting dominant chords.[14] In the opening bars in B major, after singing "In Penny Lane" (in an F#-B-C#-D# melody note ascent) McCartney sings the major third of the first chord in the progression (on "Lane") and major 7th (on "barber") then switches to a Bm chord, singing the flattened 3rd notes (on "know" with a i7 [Bm7] chord) and flattened 7th notes (on "come and go" [with a ♭VImaj7 [Gmaj7] chord] and "say hello" [with a V7sus4 [F#7sus4] chord]).[15] This has been described as a profound and surprising innovation involving abandoning mid-cycle what initially appears to be a standard I-vi-ii-V Doo Wop pop chord cycle.[16] To get from the verse "In the pouring rain - very strange" McCartney uses an E chord as a pivot, (it is a IV chord in the preceding B key and a V in the looming A key) to take listeners back into the chorus ("Penny Lane is in my ears ..."). Likewise to get back from the chorus of "There beneath the blue suburban skies I sit, and meanwhile back ... , McCartney uses an F#7 pivot chord (which is a VI in the old A key and a V in the new B key). The lyrics "very strange" and "meanwhile back" can be viewed as hinting at these complex tonal changes.


Penny Lane is among their best, most original songs, and is indeed creative, but even so it's few and far between for their career, and still relative, still a matter of what we're comparing to. How emotionally/conceptually resonant is it really, when not just comparing to other pop acts or their own career, but across music/art history? How does this compare to the jaw-dropping 1st movement of Mozart's 21st Piano Concerto, which flippantly switches between innumerable modes, mini-compositions and melodies, both unified and contrary to each other, traversing through different keys, all fully resolving each part of itself while simultaneously dramatizing a plethora of operatic characters and theater (theatrical presentation, voices and their lines of singing each elicited via the piano/orchestra). While harmonizing contradicting melodies with each other in sudden emotional dualities of violence/tragic-comedy/poignancy/heroism/suspense/danger/laughing/singing/yearning/loving, while the piano and orchestra engage in relays of communication and interweaving drama, continually upending each other, and then each upending themselves, the soloist playing keys that are perfectly, magically placed to sound utterly natural and unfolding, while somehow (as the composition grows) end up increasingly upending themselves, key-against-key within the same line of play, his own undoing of himself (inside the runs and melodies). Mozart juggles and unravels all of this without the slightest appearance of effort or force, as if it's just occurring to him all at once spontaneously, without the slightest unnatural moment, without the slightest lack of melodic or compositional perfection. It is completely impossible and there has never been a composer that can replicate such peculiar, singular abilities.

Quote:

On another note I suppose it all depends on the definition of a masterpiece. I think according to some Louis Armstrong's version of "what a wonderful world" is a masterpiece and to others it's just a pop song.


Yes, I agree.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
craola
crayon master



Location: pdx
United States

  • #54
  • Posted: 03/23/2017 19:32
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
well, there's a whole nother can of words: which artists today will stand the test of time?

it's a weird enough thing to try to predict. with the internet being what it is, will we really even see it that way in the future?

personally, i'm a pretty huge fan of bjork and radiohead, but i don't think 300 years from now people will care too much about them or any other pop/rock band (i don't care if you're talking about velvet underground, elvis, the beatles or nirvana). i just don't think that stuff translates from generation to generation or culture to culture very well.

charles mingus, miles davis and john coltrane, maybe. i really hope charles mingus is a staple for centuries to come. the man was out of this world. and what of the classical composers of recent years? will messiaen, penderecki, etc. be remembered, or is their music too high brow for permanence?
_________________
follow me on the bandcamp.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
AfterHours



Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

  • #55
  • Posted: 03/23/2017 21:17
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
craola wrote:
well, there's a whole nother can of words: which artists today will stand the test of time?

it's a weird enough thing to try to predict. with the internet being what it is, will we really even see it that way in the future?

personally, i'm a pretty huge fan of bjork and radiohead, but i don't think 300 years from now people will care too much about them or any other pop/rock band (i don't care if you're talking about velvet underground, elvis, the beatles or nirvana). i just don't think that stuff translates from generation to generation or culture to culture very well.


You may be right, and of course it's hard to argue with certainty either way. The Velvet Underground are much more comparable (emotionally/conceptually) to more atonal Stravinsky/post-Stravinsky composers and, German and Abstract Expressionist Art of the 1910s/20s, and later, hyper-realist + expressionist cinema such as Scorsese's Taxi Driver, the experimental/free jazz of Ornette Coleman, the theater of Brecht and Weill, and the poetry of Dylan and gradient descent/ascent into increasingly more majestic (or apocalyptic) and surrealistic episodes akin to Dante's Divine Comedy. So, as long as all these remain in the canon of their respective arts, which at the current rate seems unflagging, they should remain "timeless".

Quote:
charles mingus, miles davis and john coltrane, maybe. i really hope charles mingus is a staple for centuries to come. the man was out of this world.


I think so. The more emotionally/conceptually resonant and inimitable, the more likely their chances. And all 3 of those certainly meet the criteria that has been proven true throughout art history.

Quote:
and what of the classical composers of recent years? will messiaen, penderecki, etc. be remembered, or is their music too high brow for permanence?


Perhaps each of them but I think Shostakovich will be, if he's not already, the most prominently remembered. Hard to imagine the likes of Messiaen, Bartok and Stravinksy falling out of favor much, if at all though.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad



Location: Ground Control
United States

  • #56
  • Posted: 03/26/2017 23:38
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
@ Afterhours:

I agree the Beatles really aren't comparable to Beethoven. Totally agree with that.

I am curious to understand what examples you have from Velvet Underground or The Doors, that place them so much higher than the Beatles' more intriguing work Revolver and on. And when I say examples, I mean talk about them cause I've heard most if not all of both of their discographies. I'm not trying to have a pissing contest, rather discussing why you think it would be so.

Now if we were talking Rolling Stones, I'd have to 100% agree with you. Even if Rolling Stones have had an enormous impact on western culture, there's something lacking in their depth that The Beatles weren't lacking in. Perhaps you see Rolling Stones and Beatles on the same playing field, regardless of George Martin and some of their more artistic works. Which I will agree is probably only 10 to 15 of all theirs songs. John's album "John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band" probably has more emotional depth than the entire Beatles career combined - but avant garde/artsy stuff, I think quite a bit of later Beatles gets into some really interesting concepts/mental states. Certainly on par with VU, in my opinion.

Copland, Shostakovitch, Bartok, etc.... those are no brainers to be remembered for the next 200 years. Likely Miles Davis, John Coltrane and I'd also like to think Ella Fitzgerald and Billie Holiday (even if the latter two don't have the masterpiece you speak of: emotional and creative depth of the likes of Mahler).

I suppose I do have to ask, if early Beatles or Billie Holiday who are a bit more on the pop end of their spectrums' don't have the emotional/creative depth you are wanting, what makes you think their impact on culture isn't enough to have them be remembered. I'm sure we might all have a fear that actually in 200 years, they won't even know who Shostakovitch is, but they will know who the Backstreet Boys are possibly because they might live life like the movie Wall-E portrays.

I mean, as prolific as Mozart was, I really wouldn't say his music had the emotional depth of Beethoven or Mahler. Conceptual depth (magic flute) is definitely on par, but he didn't write the libretto (I don't know how much he was involved in the concepts...).
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
AfterHours



Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

  • #57
  • Posted: 03/27/2017 03:35
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Quote:
Copland, Shostakovitch, Bartok, etc.... those are no brainers to be remembered for the next 200 years. Likely Miles Davis, John Coltrane and I'd also like to think Ella Fitzgerald and Billie Holiday (even if the latter two don't have the masterpiece you speak of: emotional and creative depth of the likes of Mahler).


I wouldn't be surprised at any of those ... Yes, the gap is huge between such artists and Mahler (or any great composer), and of course the massive differential in ambition and purpose and musical knowledge, etc.

Quote:
I suppose I do have to ask, if early Beatles or Billie Holiday who are a bit more on the pop end of their spectrums' don't have the emotional/creative depth you are wanting, what makes you think their impact on culture isn't enough to have them be remembered. I'm sure we might all have a fear that actually in 200 years, they won't even know who Shostakovitch is, but they will know who the Backstreet Boys are possibly because they might live life like the movie Wall-E portrays.


I think they will remain culturally relevant almost certainly. The cultural phenomenon of The Beatles may never be truly repeated as it was a perfect storm of elements. All I meant was their consistent consideration as "The Greatest Rock Band/Artists Ever" or whatever you want to call it -- I think -- will fade significantly over the next 30 to 50 years, something like that. Just my opinion, because there is not a ton of emotional/conceptual substance of great significance to most of their music (there are exceptions, I just mean the vast majority).

Quote:
I mean, as prolific as Mozart was, I really wouldn't say his music had the emotional depth of Beethoven or Mahler. Conceptual depth (magic flute) is definitely on par, but he didn't write the libretto (I don't know how much he was involved in the concepts...).


I would agree but also disagree (kind of). Mozart was the most economical, probably ever, and more often than not, probably produced the most emotional depth per note than any composer ever has. Though of course Mahler was much more elaborate and unleashed tremendous means to build works of gargantuan scale and ambition and emotional depth. But Mozart came up with more masterpieces or near masterpieces, and in several genres, whereas Mahler probably didn't produce any quite on that level outside his Symphonies. Beethoven, was near but not quite Mozart in the above economical regard, but also was capable of elaborately detailed compositions that foretold Mahler (such as his late Quartets, Piano Sonatas, 6th and 9th Symphonies...). Beethoven is the greatest artist that's ever lived.

I'll cover The Beatles/Velvet Underground/Doors part as soon as I have some more time, though there might be only so far I will be willing to go with it as it might just come down to a difference in how we each fundamentally perceive what's "emotionally/conceptually significant" and what constitutes "depth". In the past, I've wasted a ton of print on this sort of thing before where the person(s) just didn't seem to understand precisely enough where I was actually coming from, no matter the examples/explanations I provided, and I just ended off not sure if they were just refusing to see my point of view for fear it would hurt their position or if they truly just didn't know what I meant. In short, I've never seen these Beatles arguments produce much in the way of progress so these days I try to minimize them or keep them short when they come up; make a point or two and if still no agreement, then agree to disagree, etc. In any case, as soon as I can, I'll relay my views and will see if you agree partially or wholly, or not at all.[/quote]
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad



Location: Ground Control
United States

  • #58
  • Posted: 03/27/2017 05:04
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
AfterHours wrote:


I think they will remain culturally relevant almost certainly. The cultural phenomenon of The Beatles may never be truly repeated as it was a perfect storm of elements. All I meant was their consistent consideration as "The Greatest Rock Band/Artists Ever" or whatever you want to call it -- I think -- will fade significantly over the next 30 to 50 years, something like that. Just my opinion, because there is not a ton of emotional/conceptual substance of great significance to most of their music (there are exceptions, I just mean the vast majority).


Now this statement I fully support. Perhaps this while time we were stuck on semantics. I think they already have lost such a place. I hope you got my sarcasm on they were the first to do everything.

AfterHours wrote:

I would agree but also disagree (kind of). Mozart was the most economical, probably ever, and more often than not, probably produced the most emotional depth per note than any composer ever has. Though of course Mahler was much more elaborate and unleashed tremendous means to build works of gargantuan scale and ambition and emotional depth. But Mozart came up with more masterpieces or near masterpieces, and in several genres, whereas Mahler probably didn't produce any quite on that level outside his Symphonies. Beethoven, was near but not quite Mozart in the above economical regard, but also was capable of elaborately detailed compositions that foretold Mahler (such as his late Quartets, Piano Sonatas, 6th and 9th Symphonies...). Beethoven is the greatest artist that's ever lived.

I'll cover The Beatles/Velvet Underground/Doors part as soon as I have some more time, though there might be only so far I will be willing to go with it as it might just come down to a difference in how we each fundamentally perceive what's "emotionally/conceptually significant" and what constitutes "depth". In the past, I've wasted a ton of print on this sort of thing before where the person(s) just didn't seem to understand precisely enough where I was actually coming from, no matter the examples/explanations I provided, and I just ended off not sure if they were just refusing to see my point of view for fear it would hurt their position or if they truly just didn't know what I meant. In short, I've never seen these Beatles arguments produce much in the way of progress so these days I try to minimize them or keep them short when they come up; make a point or two and if still no agreement, then agree to disagree, etc. In any case, as soon as I can, I'll relay my views and will see if you agree partially or wholly, or not at all.


Fair enough. I was mostly looking for a in my opinion, this VU or Doors song is superior to anything the Beatles did to see if I could understand more your point of view.

Also I apologize if I sounded like I was comparing quality of Beethoven to Beatles when I thought I was comparing cultural significance. Beethoven of course has the upper hand on many levels but as we both said he was the first to write what he wanted at an independent level. The cultural significance of the Beatles can't really be denied either.

It's sometimes difficult to not have someone think you've fallen into the Beatles are the only band ever mindset if you just say something positive about them.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
TheHutts



Gender: Male
New Zealand

  • #59
  • Posted: 03/27/2017 21:03
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
AfterHours wrote:
I'll cover The Beatles/Velvet Underground/Doors part as soon as I have some more time, though there might be only so far I will be willing to go with it as it might just come down to a difference in how we each fundamentally perceive what's "emotionally/conceptually significant" and what constitutes "depth".


Do you think that one reason you prefer acts like Velvet Underground and Captain Beefheart's Trout Mask Replica over The Beatles is that the former acts tend to create albums with a more uniform vision? The Beatles albums have two primary songwriters and Harrison all contributing songs, and it means that their albums often feel like collections of songs.

I also wonder if the legacy of pop music will boil down to songs rather than albums in the long run? If that happens, The Beatles will probably retain primacy, as they were a very strong singles band.

I also wonder if the preference for modern pop that often sounds synthetic with auto-tune etc will remain and music will keep evolving that way.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
  • Visit poster's website
Fischman
RockMonster, JazzMeister, Bluesboy,ClassicalMaster


Gender: Male
Location: Land of Enchantment
United States

  • #60
  • Posted: 03/27/2017 21:17
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
TheHutts wrote:
Do you think that one reason you prefer acts like Velvet Underground and Captain Beefheart's Trout Mask Replica over The Beatles is that the former acts tend to create albums with a more uniform vision? The Beatles albums have two primary songwriters and Harrison all contributing songs, and it means that their albums often feel like collections of songs.


Jumping in new here ...

Given my general ambivalence, and occasional active distaste, for the Beatles, I thought that might be part of it. However, I'm a huge Moody Blues fan and their classic albums often all five members making significant contributions to the songwriting effort. Somehow, their musical vision remains coherent in spite of the disparate inputs (all five have very distinct and different personalities which manifest in their songs).
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7


 

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum
Which album would you remove from the... JMan Music
Remove The Favorite Goodsir Music
There should be an ability to remove ... GrandmastaFro Suggestions
Remove a track from a classic/ favori... Guest Music
[ Poll ] Option to remove suggestions box whe... sszwalbenest Suggestions

 
Back to Top