Why are rock's classic bands and albums important?
musicismylife78
Posts: 6,116
There are certain records I imagine every kid, young person, teenager, when they are coming of age, its almost like a rite of passage. these are albums that are classics in the rock canon.
Any one would include Pink Floyd's Dark Side, Led Zeppelin's entire catalogue especially Zoso, The Beatles entire catalogue, The Stones entire catalogue,
My question is why did Dark Side capture people's imagination when it was released, and why is it continually listed as a classic.
Anyone who is even thinking of forming a band basically needs to hear these records or their entire foundation will be built on a faulty ground
My question is why? What is it about Zoso, Dark Side, Sgt Peppers, the alums that are some of the top selling records ever created, why do they continue to inspire generation after generation to pick up guitars or devote their lives to listening to rock and roll?
There is no question these bands and records and albums are top notch, flawless, but why?
Any one would include Pink Floyd's Dark Side, Led Zeppelin's entire catalogue especially Zoso, The Beatles entire catalogue, The Stones entire catalogue,
My question is why did Dark Side capture people's imagination when it was released, and why is it continually listed as a classic.
Anyone who is even thinking of forming a band basically needs to hear these records or their entire foundation will be built on a faulty ground
My question is why? What is it about Zoso, Dark Side, Sgt Peppers, the alums that are some of the top selling records ever created, why do they continue to inspire generation after generation to pick up guitars or devote their lives to listening to rock and roll?
There is no question these bands and records and albums are top notch, flawless, but why?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Some albums do have that mystique though... Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, Dark Side, Zoso. I think all of them are just tied to new movements in mainstream music at the time. Maybe they weren't the first to do what they did, but the encapsulated the spirit and excitement of it all. I feel Ten and Nevermind are in the same category. As well as the Chronic, Appetite for Destruction, and others.
to a certain extent your right about the stones. but basically my point is this-the stones are one of the top selling rock bands of all time. reguardless of what you think of their post 1960's albums.
Your analysis seems right to me:
When i think of a kid turning 13, getting a guitar, and being inspired to join a band, I think of those bands I listed above and that kid listening to those bands and albums.
Maybe a 13 year old right now, wouldnt listen to any Pink Floyd, or The Beatles, or Led Zep. Maybe my analysis is wrong.
How many of us went to school with kids who wore the shirts of Pink Floyd, The Doors, Led Zepp, etc.... but spent their days driving around town with the windows down listening to everything but?
Image goes a long way. When something is a classic, the tag of "good taste" gets bustowed upon anyone who associates themselves with it.
Are they perfect records, or did they just come first?
Meaning, the political/social varibles, mixed with the innovative nature of the music and the radio had a lot to do with the makings of 'Classic' albums.
No one ever heard anything like Sgt. Pepper in 1967. It was innovative because it carried a basic concept throughout the album... including the brilliantly colorful cover and liner. The first album with the lyrics printed... and songs such as 'Lucy in The Sky With Diamonds' and 'A Day In The Life'... nothing like that prior to 1967. Add the lead in singles 'Penny Lane' b/w 'Strawberry Fields, Forever'. Classic.
Same goes for 'Dark Side of The Moon' in 1973. Total stoner music. Your parents may tell you they never smoked pot... but, if they listened to Dark Side... they got stoned.
And I think the greatest determining factor is the listener. If an album makes an impact on your life... it will determine your emotional tie to the music.
...
The albums I consider true classics (not necessarily the best works by the artists), but almost in a completely different strata. Sort of like Beethoven's Fifth is a Classic Symphony... but, his Ninth is (in my opinion) his best.
--
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Abbey Road
Led Zeppelin II
Who's Next (because 'Baba O'Riely' and 'We Won't Get Fooled Again' are true, Teen/Rock Anthems)
Dark Side of The Moon
Born To Run
The Ramones (first album came out in the middle of the Disco nightmare)
Nevermind
Hail, Hail!!!
Nothing can be more harmful to the value of music or art as a whole than decreeing that certain albums and bands are beyond reproach
And I HATE Dre
I'm sure there were plenty of underground bands that never broke out that were just, if not more inspiring.
I'm not buying that these bands are thought to be good because kids wear their t shirts.
That's a very recent thing as far as I see it, the retro rock shirt. The bands listed were popular in their day and beyond, they were very cool, very original and had long lasting appeal...and that is why kids wore the t shirts 30 years on....come on :rolleyes:
He doesn't say that their popular because of the shirts, he's saying the shirts is an example of their popularity. These albums are recognized as classics, so people will wear their shirts because they want to say their into the classics, yet don't actually really listen to the music. They would never pay attention to this music if it wasn't already defined as classic.
I agree with this for the most part. People are very moldable as well These are the records we're told are the classics so we don't mind keeping it that way.
Granted, the albums listed are all pretty amazing. But at the same time there are a lot of records/bands that are just as good as these that never got the praise they deserved.
Indeed.
i am saying people jump onto the bandwagon and buy the albums because of a "classic = good" mentality. Rather than whether they actually believe it's better than their actual tastes or not.
If it wasn't for downloading, i myself probably would have bought quite a few zepplin records by now to check it out....adding to their sales but not necessarily becoming a fan.
to be metaphorical here...
i am just not going to choose a rotary phone over my cellphone just because it came first.
and yeah, some cellphone technology was already done with the rotary phone, but there are a hell of alot more features i enjoy on a cellphone that just didn't exist on rotary phones.
but with that said here is what i think is essential rock. for me this is the best stuff rock has to offer.
VU/early lou reed
replacements, westerberg's solo stuffs worst is better than most bands best.
pixies, even they seem more popluar then important.
pink floyd, but dark side is so overrated.
bob dylan, he made music meaningful. zeppelin and the beatles just wrote love/breakup songs. he wrote songs that spoke out and for a generation.
neil young.
i can honestly say i dont own a beatles record or a stones record, and i dont feel like im missing all that much. id much rather buy another from simon and garfunkel or neil young. and the who are ok but i would recommend tons of stuff before id recommend the who. as for the doors, ha!
Being told how great certain albums are is like forced indoctrination. Make up your own mind about what is important.
That's true. I don't believe they're essential either. I believe we should move on and discover new music. It's nice to look back in nostalgia, and bring those albums out once in a while to listen, but they're not the be all and end all of music.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Elvis, The Beatles, Velvet Underground, Led Zep, Pink Floyd are all bands that AT THE TIME were groundbreaking, doing something new that had not been done by a band before them.....
And I guess that's we collectively hold some albums/bands up above others, because their music captured a time.....
Sgt. Pepper is a good example of this, as at the time it was new and exciting, everything about it was groundbreaking, mt dad was 16 when he bought the vinyl.....
To my ears however, it's quite a limp and boring record compared to Abbey Road or Revolver, and easily my least favourite of the 'important' Beatles records.....however, it's influence remains......
I love Floyd, but I rarely listen to DSOTM...but I love Animals, WYWH, etc...
This idea that you have to like or listen to certain albums in order to really understand music is silly imo. Nothing The Beatles ever did inspired me one bit for example. I'm sure some people feel the same about the Stones or Zeppelin. Everyone is inspired by music in a different way, and we should encourage that. People try so hard to make everyone else think and feel like they do...I do it sometimes too...it's stupid
With the corporate bastardization of radio and splintering of musical genres its gonna take quite a bit to create the kind of crossover cultural phenomena required to break into legendary status.
It must be somewhat bleak to be a music industry insider these days knowing that for example the top grossing acts are in their 60s and even 70s. Lets face it the days are coming when some of these stars will pass on let alone retire. Who knows maybe that will free dollars up to go towards other newer acts but I kind of doubt it myself.
I think that the only Stones record that could be called "essential" is 'Exile on Main Street'.
Honestly comparing Zeppelin to the Dire Straits is quite perverted! Saying that you don't like Zeppelin but love the Dire Straits is absolutely OK! But saying they're the better Blues Rock band ... c'mon?! You really can't tell me that bassless 80's tracks like 'Brothers in Arms' & 'Money for Nothing' are better than the whole Zeppelin catalogue?! They're surely an awesome soundtrack to make some 80's aerobics workouts in Jane Fonda outfits! I'm not judging the Dire Straits and saying Zeppelin are better but it ain't surely workin' the other way around either!!
I consider the following records to be Classic Albums although they're not as old as some Albums that have already been mentioned in this thread:
Radiohead - 'OK Computer'
Queens of the Stone Age - 'Songs for the Deaf'
The White Stripes - 'Elephant'
Oasis - 'Definitely Maybe'
zeppelin is incredibly boring. mark knopfler is just as good or better than jimmy page. plus he doesnt have that annoying voice like plant. and they werent an 80's aerobic band, maybe you should give them an honest listen before defending a band that did nothing more than steal other peoples work.
that is why zeppelin isnt essential in my book, doing covers doesnt make you an important band. painting a more colorful mona lisa doesnt matter to me, who painted the first mona lisa is the actual artist.
I have nothing against Dire Straits even like some of their music but for Gods sake comparing them to Zeppelin is like comparing The Captain and Tenille to Pearl jam.
if you think that dark side is pink floyd's only essential then you have many more questions to ask before you get the answer to this one...........
Jones Beach NY 1 + 3 - '00
MSG 1 + 2 - '03
Boston Garden - '04
Montreal - '05
Boston Garden 1, Meadowlands 1 + 2 - '06
Mansfield 1 - '08
(EV solo) Boston 1 - '08
Chicago 1 - '09
MSG -'10
Brooklyn 1+2 - '13
Central Park - '15
MSG - '16
Fenway - '16
Wrigley - '16
(RRHOF) Brooklyn - '17
Fenway - '18
MSG - '22
MSG 1 - '24
Die.
See, about 6 years ago "Sticky Fingers" really got a hold of me. I find that album hugely influential and near flawless...not one song of filler...'Can't You Hear Me Knocking' changed my entire perception of the Stones...even "Beggars Banquet" I find more 'essential' than "Exile on Main Street".
how about no. the doors have some good songs, but they arent essential by a long shot.
No one else was like he was. No one since has been like he was.