Bob Marley & The Wailers - Burnin' (1973) / In 2007 the album was added to the Library of Congress' National Recording Registry for its historical and cultural significance. This is as perplexing as it is jubilant - sometimes gripping, sometimes slippery. It's reggae, obviously, but it's not mainstream reggae, certainly not rock or soul, maybe some kind of futuristic slow funk, 'War' without the pseudo-jazz. What's inescapable is Bob Marley's ferocious gift for melodic propaganda. It's one thing to come up with four consecutive title hooks, another to make the titles 'Get Up Stand Up,' 'Hallelujah Time,' 'I Shot the Sheriff,' 'Burnin' and Lootin'. ~ Robert Christgau (Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies)
Another one I'm hanging my head in shame for having forgotten!
According to Wikipedia, "The bandname is a portmanteau of deceased Rolling Stones founder Brian Jones and the 1978 Jonestown Massacre." That's going to make a fair an objective review of their work difficult for me.
It's all about the music Brian!
I guess I'm being a bit like Joy Division's Peter "Hooky" Hook when he was asked if he liked the Buzzcocks, "Their OK, but who would use the word "cock" in their name"? LOL.
I was already so grown before it ever clicked for me that "buzzcock" was a name for a vibrator!! I was like "OMG!!! I've been singing along to their songs for decades!"
LOL. It's bad enough that there is a band called "Steely Dan".
Oh goodness grief, are you saying that's what a Steely Dan is too???? Seriously?
Next thing you know you're going to tell me that "Beatles", "Pink Floyd", & "Led Zeppelin" are all words for vibrator too!
Then after that that "Pearl Jam" is also somehow associated with... oh, wait...
Well, um... yes on Steely Dan but, no, Beatles, Floyd, Zep, are all safe! Well, but now that you mention it, I'm not sure what a "Pink Floyd" is. Not sure I want to know!
Pink Floyd is actually two names of one of the band member's favourite writers put together. very safe.
In all seriousness though, as great as that Joy Division album is, that is one band name that is not a light, fun concept. Bad stuff right there with the origins of that term...
So true. As much as it has a nice ring to it, the source is nothing to take lightly.
In all seriousness though, as great as that Joy Division album is, that is one band name that is not a light, fun concept. Bad stuff right there with the origins of that term...
So true. As much as it has a nice ring to it, the source is nothing to take lightly.
oh my god. I just looked it up. I had no idea.
I know! I didn't know either until I saw the movie "Control". They went from being Warsaw to Joy Division. There was this whole fascination by much of the British post-punk and glam crowd with Germany at the time. I'm not sure what that was all about. Come to think of it, the Ramones were fascinated by Germany as well, particularly Dee Dee with East Germany.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Bob Marley & The Wailers - Burnin' (1973) / In 2007 the album was added to the Library of Congress' National Recording Registry for its historical and cultural significance. This is as perplexing as it is jubilant - sometimes gripping, sometimes slippery. It's reggae, obviously, but it's not mainstream reggae, certainly not rock or soul, maybe some kind of futuristic slow funk, 'War' without the pseudo-jazz. What's inescapable is Bob Marley's ferocious gift for melodic propaganda. It's one thing to come up with four consecutive title hooks, another to make the titles 'Get Up Stand Up,' 'Hallelujah Time,' 'I Shot the Sheriff,' 'Burnin' and Lootin'. ~ Robert Christgau (Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies)
Another one I'm hanging my head in shame for having forgotten!
There was plenty of reggae before them, Toot and the Maytals comes to mind, Jimmy Cliff is another. That Wailers album is what brought reggae mainstream though.
He was Americas first "superstar". Sure there was country before him but he put things in a frenzy. I often wonder if the Soggy Bottom boys were to represent him in O brother where art though?
Bob Marley & The Wailers - Burnin' (1973) / In 2007 the album was added to the Library of Congress' National Recording Registry for its historical and cultural significance. This is as perplexing as it is jubilant - sometimes gripping, sometimes slippery. It's reggae, obviously, but it's not mainstream reggae, certainly not rock or soul, maybe some kind of futuristic slow funk, 'War' without the pseudo-jazz. What's inescapable is Bob Marley's ferocious gift for melodic propaganda. It's one thing to come up with four consecutive title hooks, another to make the titles 'Get Up Stand Up,' 'Hallelujah Time,' 'I Shot the Sheriff,' 'Burnin' and Lootin'. ~ Robert Christgau (Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies)
Another one I'm hanging my head in shame for having forgotten!
There was plenty of reggae before them, Toot and the Maytals comes to mind, Jimmy Cliff is another. That Wailers album is what brought reggae mainstream though.
Well, considering I'm half-Trinidadian and my husband is half-Jamaican and we're both huge reggae fans and his dad used to be a great dub & rocksteady DJ, I'd say yes, it is true that there was plenty of reggae before Bob & the Wailers. But did you read why Pap picked THIS album? Do you disagree with why it was ahead of its time?
I think "Ahead of it's time" is somewhat different than simply being "first" (although Toots was also a major innovator and being "first" is of course being a visionary).
Bob Marley & The Wailers - Burnin' (1973) / In 2007 the album was added to the Library of Congress' National Recording Registry for its historical and cultural significance. This is as perplexing as it is jubilant - sometimes gripping, sometimes slippery. It's reggae, obviously, but it's not mainstream reggae, certainly not rock or soul, maybe some kind of futuristic slow funk, 'War' without the pseudo-jazz. What's inescapable is Bob Marley's ferocious gift for melodic propaganda. It's one thing to come up with four consecutive title hooks, another to make the titles 'Get Up Stand Up,' 'Hallelujah Time,' 'I Shot the Sheriff,' 'Burnin' and Lootin'. ~ Robert Christgau (Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies)
Another one I'm hanging my head in shame for having forgotten!
There was plenty of reggae before them, Toot and the Maytals comes to mind, Jimmy Cliff is another. That Wailers album is what brought reggae mainstream though.
Well, considering I'm half-Trinidadian and my husband is half-Jamaican and we're both huge reggae fans and his dad used to be a great dub & rocksteady DJ, I'd say yes, it is true that there was plenty of reggae before Bob & the Wailers. But did you read why Pap picked THIS album? Do you disagree with why it was ahead of its time?
I think "Ahead of it's time" is somewhat different than simply being "first" (although Toots was also a major innovator and being "first" is of course being a visionary).
How cool, JH! I don't travel much these days but if I did, besides London and maybe parts of Ireland, Jamaica is one place I would really like to go see. The music that came out of there is amazing. I wish I had gotten the chance to see Bob Marley. But I did get to see Black Uhuru with Sly and Robbie in the mid 80's. Oh man! What a show! It's like, no way could you sit still!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Bob Marley & The Wailers - Burnin' (1973) / In 2007 the album was added to the Library of Congress' National Recording Registry for its historical and cultural significance. This is as perplexing as it is jubilant - sometimes gripping, sometimes slippery. It's reggae, obviously, but it's not mainstream reggae, certainly not rock or soul, maybe some kind of futuristic slow funk, 'War' without the pseudo-jazz. What's inescapable is Bob Marley's ferocious gift for melodic propaganda. It's one thing to come up with four consecutive title hooks, another to make the titles 'Get Up Stand Up,' 'Hallelujah Time,' 'I Shot the Sheriff,' 'Burnin' and Lootin'. ~ Robert Christgau (Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies)
Another one I'm hanging my head in shame for having forgotten!
There was plenty of reggae before them, Toot and the Maytals comes to mind, Jimmy Cliff is another. That Wailers album is what brought reggae mainstream though.
Well, considering I'm half-Trinidadian and my husband is half-Jamaican and we're both huge reggae fans and his dad used to be a great dub & rocksteady DJ, I'd say yes, it is true that there was plenty of reggae before Bob & the Wailers. But did you read why Pap picked THIS album? Do you disagree with why it was ahead of its time?
I think "Ahead of it's time" is somewhat different than simply being "first" (although Toots was also a major innovator and being "first" is of course being a visionary).
Yes, ahead of it's time. I get it. I think that album came out at the right time.
Toots and the Maytals need more love for what they did.
I don’t understand how someone or some band has to be first in a genre for their album to be ahead of its time. Everyone is influenced by their environment and what they see and listen to. Ahead of its time, to me, indicates the album may have not been appreciated for its significance at the time. A seminal album.
Not necessarily groundbreaking, but definitely culturally relevant in hindsight.
I don’t understand how someone or some band has to be first in a genre for their album to be ahead of its time. Everyone is influenced by their environment and what they see and listen to. Ahead of its time, to me, indicates the album may have not been appreciated for its significance at the time. A seminal album.
Not necessarily groundbreaking, but definitely culturally relevant in hindsight.
To me an album ahead of it's time like Nevermind was not the first but it was ahead of it's time.
It's all up for discussion and to be a music buff no matter what you say, you are right. Somewhere someone else will agree and that is what makes debating and talking music fun.
Bob Marley & The Wailers - Burnin' (1973) / In 2007 the album was added to the Library of Congress' National Recording Registry for its historical and cultural significance. This is as perplexing as it is jubilant - sometimes gripping, sometimes slippery. It's reggae, obviously, but it's not mainstream reggae, certainly not rock or soul, maybe some kind of futuristic slow funk, 'War' without the pseudo-jazz. What's inescapable is Bob Marley's ferocious gift for melodic propaganda. It's one thing to come up with four consecutive title hooks, another to make the titles 'Get Up Stand Up,' 'Hallelujah Time,' 'I Shot the Sheriff,' 'Burnin' and Lootin'. ~ Robert Christgau (Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies)
Another one I'm hanging my head in shame for having forgotten!
There was plenty of reggae before them, Toot and the Maytals comes to mind, Jimmy Cliff is another. That Wailers album is what brought reggae mainstream though.
Well, considering I'm half-Trinidadian and my husband is half-Jamaican and we're both huge reggae fans and his dad used to be a great dub & rocksteady DJ, I'd say yes, it is true that there was plenty of reggae before Bob & the Wailers. But did you read why Pap picked THIS album? Do you disagree with why it was ahead of its time?
I think "Ahead of it's time" is somewhat different than simply being "first" (although Toots was also a major innovator and being "first" is of course being a visionary).
How cool, JH! I don't travel much these days but if I did, besides London and maybe parts of Ireland, Jamaica is one place I would really like to go see. The music that came out of there is amazing. I wish I had gotten the chance to see Bob Marley. But I did get to see Black Uhuru with Sly and Robbie in the mid 80's. Oh man! What a show! It's like, no way could you sit still!
Believe it or not, I've never been to Jamaica either! I've been to Trinidad many times, and my hubs has been to Jamaica many times, but neither of us to the other. That said it's likely we'll go next year.
I also never got to see Bob Marley. My hubs' dad was just telling me last time I saw him about 2 of the times he saw Bob Marley live (because he was living in the US by the time Marley got really big), and they were life-changing. Just listening to the description of the shows gave me shivers. And he's seen a LOT of great concerts.
Hope you get to Jamaica! I'm a big fan of Ireland, been there a few times and always love it, so get there too!
I don’t understand how someone or some band has to be first in a genre for their album to be ahead of its time. Everyone is influenced by their environment and what they see and listen to. Ahead of its time, to me, indicates the album may have not been appreciated for its significance at the time. A seminal album.
Not necessarily groundbreaking, but definitely culturally relevant in hindsight.
I like the way you put that. I agree, although the one tweak I'd put on it is that an album can be ahead of it's time even if it IS recognized at the time. I feel like Radiohead's "Ok Computer" was recognized as ahead of its time right away, and I think it was. But that shouldn't disqualify it from being ahead of its time because it was noticed at the time!
But yes, so many albums ahead of their time are only recognized after the fact as groundbreaking or even worthwhile at all.
I don’t understand how someone or some band has to be first in a genre for their album to be ahead of its time. Everyone is influenced by their environment and what they see and listen to. Ahead of its time, to me, indicates the album may have not been appreciated for its significance at the time. A seminal album.
Not necessarily groundbreaking, but definitely culturally relevant in hindsight.
That sounds like a good definition to me. As far as groundbreaking, I think that does happen with some albums that are ahead of their time (by your definition). The Ramones first album could be considered groundbreaking simply because of Johnny Ramones relentless down-stroke only guitar playing, something copied endlessly since. And that album has won over vast numbers of fans over the years but did not do so well when it came out.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I don’t understand how someone or some band has to be first in a genre for their album to be ahead of its time. Everyone is influenced by their environment and what they see and listen to. Ahead of its time, to me, indicates the album may have not been appreciated for its significance at the time. A seminal album.
Not necessarily groundbreaking, but definitely culturally relevant in hindsight.
That sounds like a good definition to me. As far as groundbreaking, I think that does happen with some albums that are ahead of their time (by your definition). The Ramones first album could be considered groundbreaking simply because of Johnny Ramones relentless down-stroke only guitar playing, something copied endlessly since. And that album has won over vast numbers of fans over the years but did not do so well when it came out.
My post stated “not necessarily groundbreaking”. It definitely does happen with many albums. Nevermind was not groundbreaking to me. Even Dave Grohl wondered if SLTS sounded too much like a Pixies ripoff when they recorded it.
Was it a great album? Absolutely and I still listen to it. The cultural relevance simply cannot be ignored. I’m not so sure it was ahead of its time. I think it came out at EXACTLY the right time. The world was ready for it… most of us had grown tired of hair bands. I’m not sure Nevermind is held in such high regard if it’s released in 1994 for example.
I don’t understand how someone or some band has to be first in a genre for their album to be ahead of its time. Everyone is influenced by their environment and what they see and listen to. Ahead of its time, to me, indicates the album may have not been appreciated for its significance at the time. A seminal album.
Not necessarily groundbreaking, but definitely culturally relevant in hindsight.
To me an album ahead of it's time like Nevermind was not the first but it was ahead of it's time.
It's all up for discussion and to be a music buff no matter what you say, you are right. Somewhere someone else will agree and that is what makes debating and talking music fun.
Many times in the thread you have taken the position that “someone else did it first” and therefore it isn’t ahead of its time. That is a rigid criteria and one I cannot support. If you take that position with Nevermind you have to be able to look at it through that lens with other suggestions imo
I don’t understand how someone or some band has to be first in a genre for their album to be ahead of its time. Everyone is influenced by their environment and what they see and listen to. Ahead of its time, to me, indicates the album may have not been appreciated for its significance at the time. A seminal album.
Not necessarily groundbreaking, but definitely culturally relevant in hindsight.
I like the way you put that. I agree, although the one tweak I'd put on it is that an album can be ahead of it's time even if it IS recognized at the time. I feel like Radiohead's "Ok Computer" was recognized as ahead of its time right away, and I think it was. But that shouldn't disqualify it from being ahead of its time because it was noticed at the time!
But yes, so many albums ahead of their time are only recognized after the fact as groundbreaking or even worthwhile at all.
I didn’t appreciate Radiohead so I cannot comment. I’m very late to the Radiohead party and even now I am a casual fan. I didn’t like the first album and liked a couple songs of Bends. They reminded me of a better version of post-Clumsy Our Lady Peace to be honest with you and the only OLP album I like to this day is their debut. It’s odd, but bands with male singers and high singing voices (including early Rush) take me a long time to get into. Long story short, I am not a person to comment on how ahead of their time Radiohead was because I hardly knew they existed. Lol.
I don’t understand how someone or some band has to be first in a genre for their album to be ahead of its time. Everyone is influenced by their environment and what they see and listen to. Ahead of its time, to me, indicates the album may have not been appreciated for its significance at the time. A seminal album.
Not necessarily groundbreaking, but definitely culturally relevant in hindsight.
I like the way you put that. I agree, although the one tweak I'd put on it is that an album can be ahead of it's time even if it IS recognized at the time. I feel like Radiohead's "Ok Computer" was recognized as ahead of its time right away, and I think it was. But that shouldn't disqualify it from being ahead of its time because it was noticed at the time!
But yes, so many albums ahead of their time are only recognized after the fact as groundbreaking or even worthwhile at all.
I didn’t appreciate Radiohead so I cannot comment. I’m very late to the Radiohead party and even now I am a casual fan. I didn’t like the first album and liked a couple songs of Bends. They reminded me of a better version of post-Clumsy Our Lady Peace to be honest with you and the only OLP album I like to this day is their debut. It’s odd, but bands with male singers and high singing voices (including early Rush) take me a long time to get into. Long story short, I am not a person to comment on how ahead of their time Radiohead was because I hardly knew they existed. Lol.
I don't feel like anyone in this convo needs to explain if they don't see an album the same as others, it's cool, it's music and therefore it's all subjective. To me Radiohead live is simply one of the best live bands ever. My top 5 live bands I've ever seen ever, if I had to pick, are the Clash, REM, Jeff Buckley, The Frames (Glen Hansard's band before he was solo), and Radiohead. But I know a zillion people could have seen many of the same bands and not agree at all. It's all good!
I don’t understand how someone or some band has to be first in a genre for their album to be ahead of its time. Everyone is influenced by their environment and what they see and listen to. Ahead of its time, to me, indicates the album may have not been appreciated for its significance at the time. A seminal album.
Not necessarily groundbreaking, but definitely culturally relevant in hindsight.
I like the way you put that. I agree, although the one tweak I'd put on it is that an album can be ahead of it's time even if it IS recognized at the time. I feel like Radiohead's "Ok Computer" was recognized as ahead of its time right away, and I think it was. But that shouldn't disqualify it from being ahead of its time because it was noticed at the time!
But yes, so many albums ahead of their time are only recognized after the fact as groundbreaking or even worthwhile at all.
I didn’t appreciate Radiohead so I cannot comment. I’m very late to the Radiohead party and even now I am a casual fan. I didn’t like the first album and liked a couple songs of Bends. They reminded me of a better version of post-Clumsy Our Lady Peace to be honest with you and the only OLP album I like to this day is their debut. It’s odd, but bands with male singers and high singing voices (including early Rush) take me a long time to get into. Long story short, I am not a person to comment on how ahead of their time Radiohead was because I hardly knew they existed. Lol.
I don't feel like anyone in this convo needs to explain if they don't see an album the same as others, it's cool, it's music and therefore it's all subjective. To me Radiohead live is simply one of the best live bands ever. My top 5 live bands I've ever seen ever, if I had to pick, are the Clash, REM, Jeff Buckley, The Frames (Glen Hansard's band before he was solo), and Radiohead. But I know a zillion people could have seen many of the same bands and not agree at all. It's all good!
I’m of the mind that a band cannot be ahead of its time when they are “pop stars”. When you are on the cover of all the magazines and on top of Billboard 100 charts, you are at exactly the right time. If you were ahead of your time, you would have probably been too challenging to be appreciated en masse.
The legacy these bands or artists create is what puts them ahead of their time. The first Killing Joke album inspired so many bands (Soundgarden for one) but is still grossly under appreciated. Often times they are the “musician’s band”. King’s X is a classic example of this. Layne Staley once asked Dug Pinnick (only half jokingly) “hey when are you going to come out with a new album so we can rip you off again?” Ty Tabor is really helped popularize Drop D in alternative music.
Anyways, you are right in that no one is wrong. I was only saying I didn’t comment on Radiohead because I am not educated enough to say whether they would be considered ahead of their time or not. Happy for you they are a great live act. I would probably see them if they rolled through Cowtown again (I don’t know if they still tour).
I don’t understand how someone or some band has to be first in a genre for their album to be ahead of its time. Everyone is influenced by their environment and what they see and listen to. Ahead of its time, to me, indicates the album may have not been appreciated for its significance at the time. A seminal album.
Not necessarily groundbreaking, but definitely culturally relevant in hindsight.
That sounds like a good definition to me. As far as groundbreaking, I think that does happen with some albums that are ahead of their time (by your definition). The Ramones first album could be considered groundbreaking simply because of Johnny Ramones relentless down-stroke only guitar playing, something copied endlessly since. And that album has won over vast numbers of fans over the years but did not do so well when it came out.
My post stated “not necessarily groundbreaking”. It definitely does happen with many albums. Nevermind was not groundbreaking to me. Even Dave Grohl wondered if SLTS sounded too much like a Pixies ripoff when they recorded it.
Was it a great album? Absolutely and I still listen to it. The cultural relevance simply cannot be ignored. I’m not so sure it was ahead of its time. I think it came out at EXACTLY the right time. The world was ready for it… most of us had grown tired of hair bands. I’m not sure Nevermind is held in such high regard if it’s released in 1994 for example.
I agree that Nevermind was really not groundbreaking. It's interesting to me to have read more recently about Cobain's thoughts on Nevermind. Apparently he found it "over-produced" and said it sounded "like a Motley Crue album". The songs were great, but there was nothing really new there and in retrospect, I think Cobain was right about the production. To make matters worse, I have a DVD somewhere that is a documentary about the making of Nevermind. The film was intended to highlight all these great and positive attributes of the album. If you love that album, I would suggest avoiding the film. It absolutely ruined that record for me. I haven't listened to it in years.
I don’t understand how someone or some band has to be first in a genre for their album to be ahead of its time. Everyone is influenced by their environment and what they see and listen to. Ahead of its time, to me, indicates the album may have not been appreciated for its significance at the time. A seminal album.
Not necessarily groundbreaking, but definitely culturally relevant in hindsight.
I like the way you put that. I agree, although the one tweak I'd put on it is that an album can be ahead of it's time even if it IS recognized at the time. I feel like Radiohead's "Ok Computer" was recognized as ahead of its time right away, and I think it was. But that shouldn't disqualify it from being ahead of its time because it was noticed at the time!
But yes, so many albums ahead of their time are only recognized after the fact as groundbreaking or even worthwhile at all.
I didn’t appreciate Radiohead so I cannot comment. I’m very late to the Radiohead party and even now I am a casual fan. I didn’t like the first album and liked a couple songs of Bends. They reminded me of a better version of post-Clumsy Our Lady Peace to be honest with you and the only OLP album I like to this day is their debut. It’s odd, but bands with male singers and high singing voices (including early Rush) take me a long time to get into. Long story short, I am not a person to comment on how ahead of their time Radiohead was because I hardly knew they existed. Lol.
I don't feel like anyone in this convo needs to explain if they don't see an album the same as others, it's cool, it's music and therefore it's all subjective. To me Radiohead live is simply one of the best live bands ever. My top 5 live bands I've ever seen ever, if I had to pick, are the Clash, REM, Jeff Buckley, The Frames (Glen Hansard's band before he was solo), and Radiohead. But I know a zillion people could have seen many of the same bands and not agree at all. It's all good!
I totally agree, JH. I try to preface my opinions about music with the caveat that my opinions are just that- opinions. If I ever come across as a smart-ass or overly opinionated, please call me on that shit! In another thread, I waxed fanboy like over the band Dead Moon. Our good fellow poster Wobbie gave his opinion which was, "...gotta tell you, I thought they were unlistenable." I was totally cool with that and we had a good laugh over it. We all have our own individual and separate ears and brains and not a one of us can crawl inside someone else and hear the way another person hears. This is one of the reasons why I insist there is no such thing as "bad music". I find that to be impossible!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I don’t understand how someone or some band has to be first in a genre for their album to be ahead of its time. Everyone is influenced by their environment and what they see and listen to. Ahead of its time, to me, indicates the album may have not been appreciated for its significance at the time. A seminal album.
Not necessarily groundbreaking, but definitely culturally relevant in hindsight.
I like the way you put that. I agree, although the one tweak I'd put on it is that an album can be ahead of it's time even if it IS recognized at the time. I feel like Radiohead's "Ok Computer" was recognized as ahead of its time right away, and I think it was. But that shouldn't disqualify it from being ahead of its time because it was noticed at the time!
But yes, so many albums ahead of their time are only recognized after the fact as groundbreaking or even worthwhile at all.
I didn’t appreciate Radiohead so I cannot comment. I’m very late to the Radiohead party and even now I am a casual fan. I didn’t like the first album and liked a couple songs of Bends. They reminded me of a better version of post-Clumsy Our Lady Peace to be honest with you and the only OLP album I like to this day is their debut. It’s odd, but bands with male singers and high singing voices (including early Rush) take me a long time to get into. Long story short, I am not a person to comment on how ahead of their time Radiohead was because I hardly knew they existed. Lol.
I don't feel like anyone in this convo needs to explain if they don't see an album the same as others, it's cool, it's music and therefore it's all subjective. To me Radiohead live is simply one of the best live bands ever. My top 5 live bands I've ever seen ever, if I had to pick, are the Clash, REM, Jeff Buckley, The Frames (Glen Hansard's band before he was solo), and Radiohead. But I know a zillion people could have seen many of the same bands and not agree at all. It's all good!
I’m of the mind that a band cannot be ahead of its time when they are “pop stars”. When you are on the cover of all the magazines and on top of Billboard 100 charts, you are at exactly the right time. If you were ahead of your time, you would have probably been too challenging to be appreciated en masse.
The legacy these bands or artists create is what puts them ahead of their time. The first Killing Joke album inspired so many bands (Soundgarden for one) but is still grossly under appreciated. Often times they are the “musician’s band”. King’s X is a classic example of this. Layne Staley once asked Dug Pinnick (only half jokingly) “hey when are you going to come out with a new album so we can rip you off again?” Ty Tabor is really helped popularize Drop D in alternative music.
Anyways, you are right in that no one is wrong. I was only saying I didn’t comment on Radiohead because I am not educated enough to say whether they would be considered ahead of their time or not. Happy for you they are a great live act. I would probably see them if they rolled through Cowtown again (I don’t know if they still tour).
I like that we're continuing this convo in the spirit of spirited convo!
So after reading what you've written, I'm of the mind that you have a bit of an elitist mindset when it comes to music. While it is absolutely true that rarely is music that becomes commercially successful right away is seen as cutting edge or ahead of it's time, you're basically saying your standard for if it's ahead of it's time is whether it's too obscure or unusual for a huge mass of people to like it and buy it and cover it in the media. That standard has zero to do with the content of the music, anything innovative about it, or what did and didn't exist like it before. You're only judging (on that point) on whether it's commercially successful, and that seems a bit elitist and to not be about the music and the context, just the commercial success. It also assumes that only a small % of people appreciate music "ahead of its time" even if maybe that band or that album actually wakes everyone up to something they had no clue of. You can call that "right on time" or you can just look at whether there was anything like it that everyone knew and appreciated before it, and if not, when they were writing and recording it they were ahead of all the rest of us.
You said the legacy they create is what puts them ahead of their time, and I'd say so many bands were inspired (and say so publicly) by Radiohead, I feel they meet the "Legacy Criteria" easily.
In many ways it's all semantics on this point, but I do always bristle at that "if it's successful it isn't cool anymore", which isn't what you said but I hear the roots of that idea in what you did say.
I don’t understand how someone or some band has to be first in a genre for their album to be ahead of its time. Everyone is influenced by their environment and what they see and listen to. Ahead of its time, to me, indicates the album may have not been appreciated for its significance at the time. A seminal album.
Not necessarily groundbreaking, but definitely culturally relevant in hindsight.
To me an album ahead of it's time like Nevermind was not the first but it was ahead of it's time.
It's all up for discussion and to be a music buff no matter what you say, you are right. Somewhere someone else will agree and that is what makes debating and talking music fun.
Many times in the thread you have taken the position that “someone else did it first” and therefore it isn’t ahead of its time. That is a rigid criteria and one I cannot support. If you take that position with Nevermind you have to be able to look at it through that lens with other suggestions imo
Yes and the people I listed before them usually did it better as I listed Janes Addiction to counter the Nirvana argument.
For the Wailers album there was so much other great Reggae out there. That album just happened to catch on. Is it timeless? Yes I would say that it is.
Can we say GG Alin and the Murder Junkies for Scat Rock or WTF music? I think they were so groundbreaking that no one has tried to reproduce it or follow in the bands footsteps since!
I don’t understand how someone or some band has to be first in a genre for their album to be ahead of its time. Everyone is influenced by their environment and what they see and listen to. Ahead of its time, to me, indicates the album may have not been appreciated for its significance at the time. A seminal album.
Not necessarily groundbreaking, but definitely culturally relevant in hindsight.
I like the way you put that. I agree, although the one tweak I'd put on it is that an album can be ahead of it's time even if it IS recognized at the time. I feel like Radiohead's "Ok Computer" was recognized as ahead of its time right away, and I think it was. But that shouldn't disqualify it from being ahead of its time because it was noticed at the time!
But yes, so many albums ahead of their time are only recognized after the fact as groundbreaking or even worthwhile at all.
I didn’t appreciate Radiohead so I cannot comment. I’m very late to the Radiohead party and even now I am a casual fan. I didn’t like the first album and liked a couple songs of Bends. They reminded me of a better version of post-Clumsy Our Lady Peace to be honest with you and the only OLP album I like to this day is their debut. It’s odd, but bands with male singers and high singing voices (including early Rush) take me a long time to get into. Long story short, I am not a person to comment on how ahead of their time Radiohead was because I hardly knew they existed. Lol.
I don't feel like anyone in this convo needs to explain if they don't see an album the same as others, it's cool, it's music and therefore it's all subjective. To me Radiohead live is simply one of the best live bands ever. My top 5 live bands I've ever seen ever, if I had to pick, are the Clash, REM, Jeff Buckley, The Frames (Glen Hansard's band before he was solo), and Radiohead. But I know a zillion people could have seen many of the same bands and not agree at all. It's all good!
I’m of the mind that a band cannot be ahead of its time when they are “pop stars”. When you are on the cover of all the magazines and on top of Billboard 100 charts, you are at exactly the right time. If you were ahead of your time, you would have probably been too challenging to be appreciated en masse.
The legacy these bands or artists create is what puts them ahead of their time. The first Killing Joke album inspired so many bands (Soundgarden for one) but is still grossly under appreciated. Often times they are the “musician’s band”. King’s X is a classic example of this. Layne Staley once asked Dug Pinnick (only half jokingly) “hey when are you going to come out with a new album so we can rip you off again?” Ty Tabor is really helped popularize Drop D in alternative music.
Anyways, you are right in that no one is wrong. I was only saying I didn’t comment on Radiohead because I am not educated enough to say whether they would be considered ahead of their time or not. Happy for you they are a great live act. I would probably see them if they rolled through Cowtown again (I don’t know if they still tour).
I like that we're continuing this convo in the spirit of spirited convo!
So after reading what you've written, I'm of the mind that you have a bit of an elitist mindset when it comes to music. While it is absolutely true that rarely is music that becomes commercially successful right away is seen as cutting edge or ahead of it's time, you're basically saying your standard for if it's ahead of it's time is whether it's too obscure or unusual for a huge mass of people to like it and buy it and cover it in the media. That standard has zero to do with the content of the music, anything innovative about it, or what did and didn't exist like it before. You're only judging (on that point) on whether it's commercially successful, and that seems a bit elitist and to not be about the music and the context, just the commercial success. It also assumes that only a small % of people appreciate music "ahead of its time" even if maybe that band or that album actually wakes everyone up to something they had no clue of. You can call that "right on time" or you can just look at whether there was anything like it that everyone knew and appreciated before it, and if not, when they were writing and recording it they were ahead of all the rest of us.
You said the legacy they create is what puts them ahead of their time, and I'd say so many bands were inspired (and say so publicly) by Radiohead, I feel they meet the "Legacy Criteria" easily.
In many ways it's all semantics on this point, but I do always bristle at that "if it's successful it isn't cool anymore", which isn't what you said but I hear the roots of that idea in what you did say.
I would argue it is not elitist, but a criteria. If it was not ahead of its time, everyone would “get it” immediately. If they get it immediately then it is released at exactly the right time. Nothing is set in stone of course. Some (rare) artists will always sound ahead of their time to me (Sun Ra, Talking Heads for example).
I do like and appreciate music that is more of a challenge to listen to, that stirs emotion. That’s why PJ Ten was such an important album to me as a young man. It was dark and beautiful.
To that end, Ten was also released at exactly the right time. No Code or Binaural would be PJ albums I consider ahead of their time. Most people didn’t appreciate them at the time of release (sales show that). Only later were these albums being recognized for the (imo) masterpieces they are. At this point, they are my two go to studio albums for PJ
I don’t understand how someone or some band has to be first in a genre for their album to be ahead of its time. Everyone is influenced by their environment and what they see and listen to. Ahead of its time, to me, indicates the album may have not been appreciated for its significance at the time. A seminal album.
Not necessarily groundbreaking, but definitely culturally relevant in hindsight.
I like the way you put that. I agree, although the one tweak I'd put on it is that an album can be ahead of it's time even if it IS recognized at the time. I feel like Radiohead's "Ok Computer" was recognized as ahead of its time right away, and I think it was. But that shouldn't disqualify it from being ahead of its time because it was noticed at the time!
But yes, so many albums ahead of their time are only recognized after the fact as groundbreaking or even worthwhile at all.
I didn’t appreciate Radiohead so I cannot comment. I’m very late to the Radiohead party and even now I am a casual fan. I didn’t like the first album and liked a couple songs of Bends. They reminded me of a better version of post-Clumsy Our Lady Peace to be honest with you and the only OLP album I like to this day is their debut. It’s odd, but bands with male singers and high singing voices (including early Rush) take me a long time to get into. Long story short, I am not a person to comment on how ahead of their time Radiohead was because I hardly knew they existed. Lol.
I don't feel like anyone in this convo needs to explain if they don't see an album the same as others, it's cool, it's music and therefore it's all subjective. To me Radiohead live is simply one of the best live bands ever. My top 5 live bands I've ever seen ever, if I had to pick, are the Clash, REM, Jeff Buckley, The Frames (Glen Hansard's band before he was solo), and Radiohead. But I know a zillion people could have seen many of the same bands and not agree at all. It's all good!
I’m of the mind that a band cannot be ahead of its time when they are “pop stars”. When you are on the cover of all the magazines and on top of Billboard 100 charts, you are at exactly the right time. If you were ahead of your time, you would have probably been too challenging to be appreciated en masse.
The legacy these bands or artists create is what puts them ahead of their time. The first Killing Joke album inspired so many bands (Soundgarden for one) but is still grossly under appreciated. Often times they are the “musician’s band”. King’s X is a classic example of this. Layne Staley once asked Dug Pinnick (only half jokingly) “hey when are you going to come out with a new album so we can rip you off again?” Ty Tabor is really helped popularize Drop D in alternative music.
Anyways, you are right in that no one is wrong. I was only saying I didn’t comment on Radiohead because I am not educated enough to say whether they would be considered ahead of their time or not. Happy for you they are a great live act. I would probably see them if they rolled through Cowtown again (I don’t know if they still tour).
I like that we're continuing this convo in the spirit of spirited convo!
So after reading what you've written, I'm of the mind that you have a bit of an elitist mindset when it comes to music. While it is absolutely true that rarely is music that becomes commercially successful right away is seen as cutting edge or ahead of it's time, you're basically saying your standard for if it's ahead of it's time is whether it's too obscure or unusual for a huge mass of people to like it and buy it and cover it in the media. That standard has zero to do with the content of the music, anything innovative about it, or what did and didn't exist like it before. You're only judging (on that point) on whether it's commercially successful, and that seems a bit elitist and to not be about the music and the context, just the commercial success. It also assumes that only a small % of people appreciate music "ahead of its time" even if maybe that band or that album actually wakes everyone up to something they had no clue of. You can call that "right on time" or you can just look at whether there was anything like it that everyone knew and appreciated before it, and if not, when they were writing and recording it they were ahead of all the rest of us.
You said the legacy they create is what puts them ahead of their time, and I'd say so many bands were inspired (and say so publicly) by Radiohead, I feel they meet the "Legacy Criteria" easily.
In many ways it's all semantics on this point, but I do always bristle at that "if it's successful it isn't cool anymore", which isn't what you said but I hear the roots of that idea in what you did say.
I would argue it is not elitist, but a criteria. If it was not ahead of its time, everyone would “get it” immediately. If they get it immediately then it is released at exactly the right time. Nothing is set in stone of course. Some (rare) artists will always sound ahead of their time to me (Sun Ra, Talking Heads for example).
I do like and appreciate music that is more of a challenge to listen to, that stirs emotion. That’s why PJ Ten was such an important album to me as a young man. It was dark and beautiful.
Out of curiosity. Would you say Yield was ahead of it's time or too late?
Reason I ask is that a reviewer said if Yield was made after Ten it would have made them a bigger band than U2.
I always thought that take to be very interesting.
I don’t understand how someone or some band has to be first in a genre for their album to be ahead of its time. Everyone is influenced by their environment and what they see and listen to. Ahead of its time, to me, indicates the album may have not been appreciated for its significance at the time. A seminal album.
Not necessarily groundbreaking, but definitely culturally relevant in hindsight.
I like the way you put that. I agree, although the one tweak I'd put on it is that an album can be ahead of it's time even if it IS recognized at the time. I feel like Radiohead's "Ok Computer" was recognized as ahead of its time right away, and I think it was. But that shouldn't disqualify it from being ahead of its time because it was noticed at the time!
But yes, so many albums ahead of their time are only recognized after the fact as groundbreaking or even worthwhile at all.
I didn’t appreciate Radiohead so I cannot comment. I’m very late to the Radiohead party and even now I am a casual fan. I didn’t like the first album and liked a couple songs of Bends. They reminded me of a better version of post-Clumsy Our Lady Peace to be honest with you and the only OLP album I like to this day is their debut. It’s odd, but bands with male singers and high singing voices (including early Rush) take me a long time to get into. Long story short, I am not a person to comment on how ahead of their time Radiohead was because I hardly knew they existed. Lol.
I don't feel like anyone in this convo needs to explain if they don't see an album the same as others, it's cool, it's music and therefore it's all subjective. To me Radiohead live is simply one of the best live bands ever. My top 5 live bands I've ever seen ever, if I had to pick, are the Clash, REM, Jeff Buckley, The Frames (Glen Hansard's band before he was solo), and Radiohead. But I know a zillion people could have seen many of the same bands and not agree at all. It's all good!
I’m of the mind that a band cannot be ahead of its time when they are “pop stars”. When you are on the cover of all the magazines and on top of Billboard 100 charts, you are at exactly the right time. If you were ahead of your time, you would have probably been too challenging to be appreciated en masse.
The legacy these bands or artists create is what puts them ahead of their time. The first Killing Joke album inspired so many bands (Soundgarden for one) but is still grossly under appreciated. Often times they are the “musician’s band”. King’s X is a classic example of this. Layne Staley once asked Dug Pinnick (only half jokingly) “hey when are you going to come out with a new album so we can rip you off again?” Ty Tabor is really helped popularize Drop D in alternative music.
Anyways, you are right in that no one is wrong. I was only saying I didn’t comment on Radiohead because I am not educated enough to say whether they would be considered ahead of their time or not. Happy for you they are a great live act. I would probably see them if they rolled through Cowtown again (I don’t know if they still tour).
I like that we're continuing this convo in the spirit of spirited convo!
So after reading what you've written, I'm of the mind that you have a bit of an elitist mindset when it comes to music. While it is absolutely true that rarely is music that becomes commercially successful right away is seen as cutting edge or ahead of it's time, you're basically saying your standard for if it's ahead of it's time is whether it's too obscure or unusual for a huge mass of people to like it and buy it and cover it in the media. That standard has zero to do with the content of the music, anything innovative about it, or what did and didn't exist like it before. You're only judging (on that point) on whether it's commercially successful, and that seems a bit elitist and to not be about the music and the context, just the commercial success. It also assumes that only a small % of people appreciate music "ahead of its time" even if maybe that band or that album actually wakes everyone up to something they had no clue of. You can call that "right on time" or you can just look at whether there was anything like it that everyone knew and appreciated before it, and if not, when they were writing and recording it they were ahead of all the rest of us.
You said the legacy they create is what puts them ahead of their time, and I'd say so many bands were inspired (and say so publicly) by Radiohead, I feel they meet the "Legacy Criteria" easily.
In many ways it's all semantics on this point, but I do always bristle at that "if it's successful it isn't cool anymore", which isn't what you said but I hear the roots of that idea in what you did say.
I would argue it is not elitist, but a criteria. If it was not ahead of its time, everyone would “get it” immediately. If they get it immediately then it is released at exactly the right time. Nothing is set in stone of course. Some (rare) artists will always sound ahead of their time to me (Sun Ra, Talking Heads for example).
I do like and appreciate music that is more of a challenge to listen to, that stirs emotion. That’s why PJ Ten was such an important album to me as a young man. It was dark and beautiful.
Out of curiosity. Would you say Yield was ahead of it's time or too late?
Reason I ask is that a reviewer said if Yield was made after Ten it would have made them a bigger band than U2.
I always thought that take to be very interesting.
That is an interesting take. By the reasoning of the reviewer the album came too late and that is a reasonable take. For EV that was probably a blessing in disguise. He didn’t want to be bigger than U2.
Also @1ThoughtKnown I have fantastic news for you... The Radiohead thread on this forum is up to 42 pages long now. I feel confident that by the time you read through all 42 pages of discussion... well you will probably hate Radiohead after reading through it but you will also certainly know why so many of us love them
Kidding, of course I don't expect you to read it all but I did smile since it's the thread at the moment right under this one
Also @1ThoughtKnown I have fantastic news for you... The Radiohead thread on this forum is up to 42 pages long now. I feel confident that by the time you read through all 42 pages of discussion... well you will probably hate Radiohead after reading through it but you will also certainly know why so many of us love them
Kidding, of course I don't expect you to read it all but I did smile since it's the thread at the moment right under this one
Hahaha! Love it. I do have five Radiohead albums on wax. I am very late to the party (purchased within the last 3 years) so can’t comment on whether or not they were ahead of their time. I hated their first album when it came out (that Creep song is cringe worthy) and never revisited the band until 2018-19. By all accounts, my opinion of Pablo’s Honey (I think that’s what it’s called) is shared by most Radiohead super fans.
Great band and will trust others when they say they were ahead of their time.
Comments
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
I know! I didn't know either until I saw the movie "Control". They went from being Warsaw to Joy Division. There was this whole fascination by much of the British post-punk and glam crowd with Germany at the time. I'm not sure what that was all about.
Come to think of it, the Ramones were fascinated by Germany as well, particularly Dee Dee with East Germany.
He was Americas first "superstar". Sure there was country before him but he put things in a frenzy. I often wonder if the Soggy Bottom boys were to represent him in O brother where art though?
I think "Ahead of it's time" is somewhat different than simply being "first" (although Toots was also a major innovator and being "first" is of course being a visionary).
How cool, JH!
I don't travel much these days but if I did, besides London and maybe parts of Ireland, Jamaica is one place I would really like to go see. The music that came out of there is amazing. I wish I had gotten the chance to see Bob Marley. But I did get to see Black Uhuru with Sly and Robbie in the mid 80's. Oh man! What a show! It's like, no way could you sit still!
Toots and the Maytals need more love for what they did.
indicates the album may have not been appreciated for its significance at the time. A seminal album.
It's all up for discussion and to be a music buff no matter what you say, you are right. Somewhere someone else will agree and that is what makes debating and talking music fun.
I also never got to see Bob Marley. My hubs' dad was just telling me last time I saw him about 2 of the times he saw Bob Marley live (because he was living in the US by the time Marley got really big), and they were life-changing. Just listening to the description of the shows gave me shivers. And he's seen a LOT of great concerts.
Hope you get to Jamaica! I'm a big fan of Ireland, been there a few times and always love it, so get there too!
But yes, so many albums ahead of their time are only recognized after the fact as groundbreaking or even worthwhile at all.
That sounds like a good definition to me. As far as groundbreaking, I think that does happen with some albums that are ahead of their time (by your definition). The Ramones first album could be considered groundbreaking simply because of Johnny Ramones relentless down-stroke only guitar playing, something copied endlessly since. And that album has won over vast numbers of fans over the years but did not do so well when it came out.
It’s odd, but bands with male singers and high singing voices (including early Rush) take me a long time to get into. Long story short, I am not a person to comment on how ahead of their time Radiohead was because I hardly knew they existed. Lol.
It's interesting to me to have read more recently about Cobain's thoughts on Nevermind. Apparently he found it "over-produced" and said it sounded "like a Motley Crue album". The songs were great, but there was nothing really new there and in retrospect, I think Cobain was right about the production. To make matters worse, I have a DVD somewhere that is a documentary about the making of Nevermind. The film was intended to highlight all these great and positive attributes of the album. If you love that album, I would suggest avoiding the film. It absolutely ruined that record for me. I haven't listened to it in years.
I totally agree, JH.
I try to preface my opinions about music with the caveat that my opinions are just that- opinions. If I ever come across as a smart-ass or overly opinionated, please call me on that shit!
In another thread, I waxed fanboy like over the band Dead Moon. Our good fellow poster Wobbie gave his opinion which was, "...gotta tell you, I thought they were unlistenable."
I was totally cool with that and we had a good laugh over it. We all have our own individual and separate ears and brains and not a one of us can crawl inside someone else and hear the way another person hears. This is one of the reasons why I insist there is no such thing as "bad music". I find that to be impossible!
So after reading what you've written, I'm of the mind that you have a bit of an elitist mindset when it comes to music. While it is absolutely true that rarely is music that becomes commercially successful right away is seen as cutting edge or ahead of it's time, you're basically saying your standard for if it's ahead of it's time is whether it's too obscure or unusual for a huge mass of people to like it and buy it and cover it in the media. That standard has zero to do with the content of the music, anything innovative about it, or what did and didn't exist like it before. You're only judging (on that point) on whether it's commercially successful, and that seems a bit elitist and to not be about the music and the context, just the commercial success. It also assumes that only a small % of people appreciate music "ahead of its time" even if maybe that band or that album actually wakes everyone up to something they had no clue of. You can call that "right on time" or you can just look at whether there was anything like it that everyone knew and appreciated before it, and if not, when they were writing and recording it they were ahead of all the rest of us.
You said the legacy they create is what puts them ahead of their time, and I'd say so many bands were inspired (and say so publicly) by Radiohead, I feel they meet the "Legacy Criteria" easily.
In many ways it's all semantics on this point, but I do always bristle at that "if it's successful it isn't cool anymore", which isn't what you said but I hear the roots of that idea in what you did say.
For the Wailers album there was so much other great Reggae out there. That album just happened to catch on. Is it timeless? Yes I would say that it is.
Reason I ask is that a reviewer said if Yield was made after Ten it would have made them a bigger band than U2.
I always thought that take to be very interesting.
Kidding, of course I don't expect you to read it all but I did smile since it's the thread at the moment right under this one