|
Post by rockysigman on Jan 16, 2006 17:19:16 GMT -5
Rocky must have missed it when I said "But seriously". On the greatest album of all time? Yes. Or at least each lyric should fullfill some sort of purpose, if not have a strict meaning. Good, because all the lyrics on the White Album make sense to me. Then it's settled. Then why were you arguing that the lyrics didn't need to make sense? And how can they all make sense to you when you just said that "Helter Skelter" doesn't and isn't supposed to mean anything?
|
|
|
Post by shin on Jan 16, 2006 17:25:09 GMT -5
You sound like Chrisfan now.
I'm arguing the requirement, not the album's ability to measure up to it. The lyrics don't have to "make sense" in order for the album to be the best of all time. But if they HAVE to, then they do...to me. And they always have. And considering it's a completely subjective, personal, and contextual requirement, that's enough.
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Jan 16, 2006 17:25:58 GMT -5
Shin, you're refusing to look common sense in the face ... and that face says that VU&Nico is the best album ever.
|
|
|
Post by shin on Jan 16, 2006 17:26:16 GMT -5
And how can they all mean sake sense to you when you just said that "Helter Skelter" doesn't and isn't supposed to mean anything?
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Jan 16, 2006 17:26:41 GMT -5
I think that by Mantis's criteria, you don't have to be "commercially" successful, but rather, you have to make up for that lack of it with other "ly" words. There has to be enough there to make up for the lack of commercial success, even in the face of other bands who achieved great commercial success. I think London Calling and VU & Nico could still slip in and be contenders on the strength of their other "ly's". London Calling moreso than VU & Nico, I'd say. Luke's right, commercialism certainly isn't the most important qualifier, but I can't imagine the "greatest album ever made" wouldn't have considerable mass appeal. I'm perfectly open to an album that would so overwhelming on all other fronts that it slipping by the public at large would be acceptable...even expected in some cases, but the other fronts would have to be gigantic...and again I can't imagine an album that was hugely historically and socially significant that it wouldn't also have at least pretty good sales numbers to back it up. If we're attempting to be completely objective then we have to have clear examples of the impact this album had. To have poor sales I feel like it would have had to have made enormous strides in almost every other area...sonically, lyrically, musically...it would have had to have an undenably huge impact on the industry as well as the listener. We're not just talking about great album...all the albums that have been brought up are great albums but there has to be a reason to pick just one. So if you think commercial viablity is bunk then it's got make up for it in other ways. Convince me.
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jan 16, 2006 17:26:49 GMT -5
Agree completely with Rocky's response to Shin.
And as for the dud tracks on The Beatles ... the four "songs" (Wild Honey Pie, Why Don't We Do It In the Road, Good Night, and Long, Long, Long) clock in at just under 9 minutes. Add in the interminably long Revolution #9, and you've got a full side of an LP. I was actually being generous with limiting the duds to just these five. I just got through listening to this album about half an hour ago, and Glass Onion is easily one of the worst Beatlesongs, IMHO. Toss that one in as well, and you've got just over eleven minutes of "song" to delete from the LP, plus Revolution #9. Now consider that there are lots of people who'll object to other cuts from the album (Ob-la-di, Martha My Dear or Honey Pie, etc.) and you've got an album that seems to have a lot of holes in it.
In contrast, name me a dud track off Revolver. Or how about from Rubber Soul (particularly the UK release, which is now considered the standard issue), go ahead, we'll wait.
See? There aren't any. Most folks will tell you that the weakest track on Revolver is Yellow Submarine, but Lennon's resounding psychedelic sea chanty (and Ringo's first great vocal performance) is one of the band's most popular songs, and has a legitimate place in our shared musical canon. Talk about getting incorporated into the culture ... little kids and folks in retirement homes can all sing this ditty. There isn't a single track from The Beatles that can match that.
And Taxman is every bit the equal of While My Guitar Gently Weeps, plus it's actually George playing those leads. Revolver blows the white album out of the water.
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jan 16, 2006 17:27:24 GMT -5
You sound like Chrisfan now. I'm arguing the requirement, not the album's ability to measure up to it. The lyrics don't have to "make sense" in order for the album to be the best of all time. But if they HAVE to, then they do...to me. And they always have. And considering it's a completely subjective, personal, and contextual requirement, that's enough. Okay, see, I thought you were saying they didn't have to mean anything to explain your pick. I misunderstood your argument. Sorry. No need to throw around insults. I'm just trying to discuss music here. Doesn't need to get all personal. Calm down.
|
|
|
Post by shin on Jan 16, 2006 17:27:25 GMT -5
The word for today is "surrealism".
|
|
|
Post by shin on Jan 16, 2006 17:28:14 GMT -5
No need to throw around insults. lol
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Jan 16, 2006 17:30:28 GMT -5
how about the fact that the White Album is a bunch of songs, showing the Beatles at their most stressedout, wigged out period of their lives, writing songs that sound infused with some spark only because they were mentally falling out to begin with? Wasn't Lennon on heroin at this time? Weren't they chasing Maharishi Gurus to the ends of the earth in a vain attempt to look like the heads of counterculture they had been proclaimed as?
they were working on fumes at this point (1968)
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jan 16, 2006 17:30:31 GMT -5
Mantis: you're familiar with Brian Eno's classic line about the Velvet Underground's influence and lack of sales, right? Something along the lines of "only a few hundred people bought this record, but they all started bands." Sound to me like that's a pretty fair endorsement of The Velvet Underground and Nico as exerting a social and historic impact all out of proportion to its commercial impact at the time. Just think: no VU = no David Bowie as we've known him. Without those VU albums, David Jones is still singing "The Laughing Gnome."
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Jan 16, 2006 17:34:06 GMT -5
I think the Velvet Underground's lack of commercial success says a whole lot more about the state of popular music in the late '60s than it says about the actual quality of the band's music.
I was going to say that if the Velvet Underground were coming out in the '80s, those records would have had massive commercial impact. But then I realized that, if the Velvet Underground had not been around in the '60s, then pop music of subsequent decades would have been drastically different, and so the VU may have still been way ahead of their time if they'd come later.
|
|
|
Post by shin on Jan 16, 2006 17:34:24 GMT -5
And as for the dud tracks on The Beatles ... the four "songs" (Wild Honey Pie, Why Don't We Do It In the Road, Good Night, and Long, Long, Long) clock in at just under 9 minutes. Add in the interminably long Revolution #9, and you've got a full side of an LP. I was actually being generous with limiting the duds to just these five. I just got through listening to this album about half an hour ago, and Glass Onion is easily one of the worst Beatlesongs, IMHO. Toss that one in as well, and you've got just over eleven minutes of "song" to delete from the LP, plus Revolution #9. Now consider that there are lots of people who'll object to other cuts from the album (Ob-la-di, Martha My Dear or Honey Pie, etc.) and you've got an album that seems to have a lot of holes in it. I should point out that the entirety of London Calling is horrendous music and I can't stand a single note of it. Same with VU&N. Dreadful, boring, selfimportant, unmelodic wankerage. By utilizing the scientific "I don't likes it therefore it ain't okays to brings it up" method from above, London Calling and VU&N are hereby stricken from contention. And Your Bird Can Sing I Want to Tell You Got To Get You Into My Life (saved only by enjoyable verse vocals) Nowhere Man Think for Yourself I'll stop there. Heh.
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Jan 16, 2006 17:37:44 GMT -5
this sums up the entire argument superbly.
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Jan 16, 2006 17:38:30 GMT -5
Mantis: you're familiar with Brian Eno's classic line about the Velvet Underground's influence and lack of sales, right? Something along the lines of "only a few hundred people bought this record, but they all started bands." Sound to me like that's a pretty fair endorsement of The Velvet Underground and Nico as exerting a social and historic impact all out of proportion to its commercial impact at the time. Just think: no VU = no David Bowie as we've known him. Without those VU albums, David Jones is still singing "The Laughing Gnome." Yeah, I'm familier with the quote...but a single quote doesn't really demostrat it's verasity. Almost everyone that bought a Kiss album started a band too that doesn't mean they were all good bands...in fact I'd even claim that Kiss was demostratably a larger influence on music at large then VU. I acknowledge that VU had a large influence on a lot of great artists but The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Bob Dylan and The Who influenced the entire industry in a way VU never did.
|
|