Quote
lsbz

Quote
BBrownlie
If you agree that loneliness seems to be pervasive throughout 'Pepper', to me, that is just as strong an emotion as one you feel makes 'Pet Sounds' the better recording. I think they are both pretty equal on the emotional scale.

Pepper feels much thought up to me. Loneliness in a conceptual way; not really my thing anyway. The Beach Boys were more mature sounding and talking about real life.

And also there are drug references running through 'Sgt Pepper' which of course very much relates to the hippy culture. To a degree perhaps 'Sgt Pepper' is more of its time than 'Pet Sounds', which pretty much has more universal themes, especially relating to love, loneliness etc, although stylistically 'Pet Sounds' is definitely strong and incredibly influential in terms of it relating to the musical advances of 1966. With 'Sgt Pepper', there's more of the sense that the Beatles are prepared to represent a whole culture predominantly relating to the youth in 67, yet perhaps this is another aspect as to why many regard it as a landmark album. As a reflection of its time, and even influence on the period, 'Sgt Pepper' works remarkably well. The Stones releasing 'Satanic Majesties' six months after 'Sgt Pepper', which included a cover also designed using the 'Pepper' cover as a template, and psychedelic music also in part relating to drugs, shows the Stones desperately playing catch up, when to a point musically things were about to move on. In many regards possibly 'The Velvet Underground And Nico' was the most daring release of 1967, and not just for its musical experimentation and abrasiveness. Lyrically, 'The Velvet Underground And Nico' was a lot less naive and idealistic. True, drugs (and sex) was a huge theme within the contents of many of the songs, but there is more of a reality to drug's dangers, the horrors, so to speak, 'Heroin', and life as a drug addict, 'Waiting For The Man'. There is almost an anti hippy stance within the lyrics to many of the songs. 'The Velvet Underground An Nico', represents an injection of reality within its songs. The aloofness and idealistic nature of 'Pepper' is sort of brought down to earth with a bang. It's a pity 'The Velvet Underground And Nico' was delayed in being released by a year, because had it seen the light of day twelve months earlier, even the likes of 'Sgt Pepper' (and 'Satanic Majesties') would have seemed wildly naive and far fetched, certainly in the quarters that were in the know, however small they may have been. Unfortunately, very few knew of the album's existence at the time.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-27 08:31 by Edward Twining.

Very good post Edward!

Yes Edward hits it on the head.

Pet Sounds as ISBZ notes is real life, like an actual human event, or a news story perhaps, Pepper is the Academy Award nominated film version 'inspired by true events,'very moving and powerful, but a fictionalized account with composite characters, or stock-characters and plot devices.

TSMR is the derivative knock-off of a hit from a months earlier, it has great moments still, but 'been there, done that.' How many swords and sandals epics did Gladiator spawn. No, no, let's not count them just forget 'em.

Pepper is better, maybe, and IMHO people tend to remember the Movie, or 'made for TV,' version than the actual events that actually affected real-live people which might make Pet Sounds more powerful.

Maybe I'm over thinking this. . ..

She's Leaving Home.

Quote
Edward Twining
In many regards possibly 'The Velvet Underground And Nico' was the most daring release of 1967, and not just for its musical experimentation and abrasiveness. Lyrically, 'The Velvet Underground And Nico' was a lot less naive and idealistic. True, drugs (and sex) was a huge theme within the contents of many of the songs, but there is more of a reality to drug's dangers, the horrors, so to speak, 'Heroin', and life as a drug addict, 'Waiting For The Man'. There is almost an anti hippy stance within the lyrics to many of the songs. 'The Velvet Underground An Nico', represents an injection of reality within its songs.

They're just a romantic band; one should not take style for contents. And Venus In Furs and Femme Fatale are much more important and better songs than anything on Pepper.

2 1 2 0

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
lsbz

Quote
BBrownlie
If you agree that loneliness seems to be pervasive throughout 'Pepper', to me, that is just as strong an emotion as one you feel makes 'Pet Sounds' the better recording. I think they are both pretty equal on the emotional scale.

Pepper feels much thought up to me. Loneliness in a conceptual way; not really my thing anyway. The Beach Boys were more mature sounding and talking about real life.

And also there are drug references running through 'Sgt Pepper' which of course very much relates to the hippy culture. To a degree perhaps 'Sgt Pepper' is more of its time than 'Pet Sounds', which pretty much has more universal themes, especially relating to love, loneliness etc, although stylistically 'Pet Sounds' is definitely strong and incredibly influential in terms of it relating to the musical advances of 1966. With 'Sgt Pepper', there's more of the sense that the Beatles are prepared to represent a whole culture predominantly relating to the youth in 67, yet perhaps this is another aspect as to why many regard it as a landmark album. As a reflection of its time, and even influence on the period, 'Sgt Pepper' works remarkably well. The Stones releasing 'Satanic Majesties' six months after 'Sgt Pepper', which included a cover also designed using the 'Pepper' cover as a template, and psychedelic music also in part relating to drugs, shows the Stones desperately playing catch up, when to a point musically things were about to move on. In many regards possibly 'The Velvet Underground And Nico' was the most daring release of 1967, and not just for its musical experimentation and abrasiveness. Lyrically, 'The Velvet Underground And Nico' was a lot less naive and idealistic. True, drugs (and sex) was a huge theme within the contents of many of the songs, but there is more of a reality to drug's dangers, the horrors, so to speak, 'Heroin', and life as a drug addict, 'Waiting For The Man'. There is almost an anti hippy stance within the lyrics to many of the songs. 'The Velvet Underground An Nico', represents an injection of reality within its songs. The aloofness and idealistic nature of 'Pepper' is sort of brought down to earth with a bang. It's a pity 'The Velvet Underground And Nico' was delayed in being released by a year, because had it seen the light of day twelve months earlier, even the likes of 'Sgt Pepper' (and 'Satanic Majesties') would have seemed wildly naive and far fetched, certainly in the quarters that were in the know, however small they may have been. Unfortunately, very few knew of the album's existence at the time.

Thanks. Spot on.
Another thing is the Doors, I think they had some influence in the early days (and surely by 1968 and Let it bleed) and of course Hendrix.
The Sgt Pepper guitar riff, the intro and the verse, is an obvious Hendrix rip off. I never believed Hendrix played that song just for fun. I think he wanted to show how similar it was to his own Purple Haze and his style.

What exactly is the resemblance between Pet Sounds And Sgt. Pepper´s again?

I can´t hear anything. IMO, Sgt. Pepper´s is a colossus of an album, fantastically crafted (it hurts to say for a stones fan ), while Pet Sound is way too light weight for me, although with some nice pop tunes.

Maybe it´s a thematically thing. The fact that Mc Cartney has said in interviews that he admired Brian Wilson can´t be the reason alone.

A Day in the Life is one of the most fantastical mind symphonies ever composed. And brilliant. That track alone elevates Pepper to an incredible album. The perfect melding of Lennon and McCartney, and one of the most defining songs of the era. Massive.

Yes, I like what Edward Twining wrote myself.

The thing for me is that I can find plenty of examples of recordings made within the time frame of the mid to late 60s that compare (and contrast) well with each other.

The Beatles may be the most popular 60s band ever (even today), but there certainly were other artists who were making records that might be considered better than this or that Beatles record. Yes, I'm inclined to go with The Beatles, but that doesn't mean I don't find value or quality equal to them.

I find 'Pet Sounds' a different experience than 'Pepper' which is a different experience than Hendrix or The Velvet Underground or Zappa or The Stones.

It ends up being a matter of one's own personal preference and experience. Someone somewhere probably thinks bubblegum music was the end all and be all of the time, while someone else thinks The 4 Seasons 'Genuine Imitation Life Gazette' is the greatest thing.

That I grew up with and still am inclined to like the major artists of the time, I also realize that there were a lot of less popular artists (for a variety of reasons) who never had a chance to sell on the level of The Beatles, The Beach Boys or The Stones.

For me, so many great recordings were coming out at the time that, comparing them directly to each other, is pointless. Yet, I do do that myself, so, I'm not innocent of any kind of "line in the sand".

Maybe The Stones weren't desperate for anything other than to get a record out, probably The Beatles soaked up everything around them, maybe Brian Wilson wrote "soft" music because he wasn't a hard rock type of person anyway, maybe The Velvet Underground and Frank Zappa were going to have to do with being innovative and influential but not popular, maybe nothing's totally original and everyone was influenced by each other, the past and whatever they were reading at the time.

Lyrically, one finds meaning where they find meaning. Some of us probably did find more meaning in what Tony Asher and Mike Love wrote for'Pet Sounds'. Others found it elsewhere. I found 'Pepper' to be saying something more to me than 'Pet Sounds' at the same time that I found 'Pet Sounds' to be profoundly personal. This doesn't deny that everyone else wasn't saying anything worth hearing either.

On a personal aside, I have over 10,000 CDs (let alone other formats) and a pretty decent sound system. Yesterday, I listened to Harry Smith's folk music anthology, which is about as far from high quality recordings as one can get or the artists/music we've been discussing. I enjoyed that just as much as I enjoy listening to anything else.

Boy, are my arms tired.

I recently listened to Pet Sounds again, I think in places Brian maybe aimed too high, it's fantastic when it works. But there's a certain lack of something when it doesn't. I don't know what it is. Brian himself probably felt kind of unsatisfied with the final results, which lead him to the Smile project. I've read that when Pepper was released he got very deppresed. I think Pet Sounds is more of an overall "cohesive" album, with the sum being much greater than the parts and some of the songs lose something when played individually. Pepper has, at least for me, better songs...A Day In The Life is an absolute masterpiece and one of the peaks of 20th century's pop music.

Some very interesting analysis here and of of good points all around. There were a lot of good records which may have impacted the creation of Pepper and The Beatles, McCartney,were ready to compete. They won. Yes A Day in the Life was a good example of John and Paul's strengths coming together to create something truly remarkable.

Sgt. Pepper vs Their Satanic Majesties Request

There is no versus between these albums, two totally different Bands... I love them them both.. I think TSMR would be a bit greater when they added there '67 hits on it ....still love it as it is.

As for Pet Sound ...Man this record is dated ...they all sound the same to me (I love only 4 songs) ............not comparable with Sgt. Pepper (which only got one bad song)

__________________________

Which song on Pepper is the bad one?

Good morning...............ok........... maybe bad is a bit overdo.............

__________________________

About Pet Sound again, I think Bee Gees 1967 - First............ has a lot more great tunes

__________________________

Quote
NICOS
Good morning...............ok........... maybe bad is a bit overdo.............

My guess was Within You and Without You, or Maybe When I'm 64 because it is so sentimental despite that it is well crafted and works.

i used to feel that Within You and Without You was lame until i heard the instrumental mix from anthology 2

Interesting to think about the Bee Gees.

I always thought their 60s lyrics were a bit obscure, pretentious and precious (not in a real negative way either). Liked the albums, especially the more accessible hits. Placed them in my second tier of favorites, though.

What about The Hollies? A lesser group coming up with some decent stuff? For that matter, what about Cream, Jefferson Airplane, Love, The Moody Blues, Traffic, The Who, The Yardbirds? So much good stuff.

The weakest songs on 'Pepper' for me were "Getting Better", "Fixing A Hole" and "Lovely Rita". Though as it is one of my favorite albums, I'm not quite sure what weakest truly means in that context.

I like the comment on 'Pet Sounds' about how the songs have that "samey" sound. It's sort of how I feel. The songs are so good, though, that I chalk it up more to choice of studio and musicians than a negative. If only "Sloop John B" had been left off, it would be about as perfect a song cycle as one could make.

"TSMR" just attracts me in a way I can't define exactly. When it comes down to it, I realize it's not a masterwork, but I like it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-27 20:59 by BBrownlie.

Quote
deadegad
Which song on Pepper is the bad one?

I think 'bad' is the wrong word, because the Beatles didn't truly record bad songs very often. I tend to think though that around half of the songs on 'Sgt Pepper' are less inspiring than we have become accustomed to them recording, before and after 'Sgt Pepper'. Starting with 'Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite', and then through much of side two, many of the songs were workmanlike, and sound like they are pretty much written to meet a deadline in my opinion, with 'When I'm Sixty-Four' and 'A Day In The Life' being exceptions. 'When I'm Sixty-Four' is an extremely well constructed song even if it's not especially to my taste, but 'A Day In The Life' is undoubtedly one of the Beatles most important and inspiring recordings, and one which does tend to make one overlook some of the album's more mediocre moments, such is its glowing brilliance. I think one can become jaded also at the self conscious, and perhaps self important nature of much of the album as a whole, particularly in terms of the meticulous nature of its production, especially if you're not particularly engrossed by the 'Sgt Pepper' concept. I think there is a stiffness throughout much of the album which makes me long for something a little raw and spontaneous. Sometimes taking your art too seriously does have its drawbacks, especially for me as a listener. The drug references also, in relaton to the hippy ideals, does for me lead to a certain detachment in terms of me relating to the fundamental mood of the album. The self conscious nature of the album and its aloofness with regard to it wanting to be considered on a higher, and perhaps more artistic plateau, means that i can admire it in terms of it attempting to reach something a little more profound, but relate to it much less in terms of it relating to me and my life in terms of my immediate surroundings. Yes, the concept does hang together in a vague sense, but the grandness and the superficiality of its construction, makes it something i can admire from afar, but not really love. The fact that half the songs are mediocre by Beatles standards is perhaps a testimony to how well the overall concept does work, if you are willing to be seduced by its charms.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-28 09:16 by Edward Twining.

Quote
BBrownlie
What about The Hollies? A lesser group coming up with some decent stuff? For that matter, what about Cream, Jefferson Airplane, Love, The Moody Blues, Traffic, The Who, The Yardbirds? So much good stuff.

IMO, of those, the Hollies, Jefferson Airplane and possibly the Who were better groups than the Beatles. The Beatles often seem to be overrated as a group because of their songs, that were of a relatively high average quality.

Quote
lsbz

Quote
BBrownlie
What about The Hollies? A lesser group coming up with some decent stuff? For that matter, what about Cream, Jefferson Airplane, Love, The Moody Blues, Traffic, The Who, The Yardbirds? So much good stuff.

IMO, of those, the Hollies, Jefferson Airplane and possibly the Who were better groups than the Beatles. The Beatles often seem to be overrated as a group because of their songs, that were of a relatively high average quality.

You mean The Hollies, The Who and JAP had better songs than The Beatles?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
lsbz

Quote
BBrownlie
What about The Hollies? A lesser group coming up with some decent stuff? For that matter, what about Cream, Jefferson Airplane, Love, The Moody Blues, Traffic, The Who, The Yardbirds? So much good stuff.

IMO, of those, the Hollies, Jefferson Airplane and possibly the Who were better groups than the Beatles. The Beatles often seem to be overrated as a group because of their songs, that were of a relatively high average quality.

You mean The Hollies, The Who and JAP had better songs than The Beatles?

No, that's what BBrownlie seemed to suggest; that they had better songs during that era. But he called them "lesser groups", and I thought some of them were better. If you ask me, Surrealistic Pillow is better than Pepper, but Evolution clearly isn't; it depends.

I said that I consider The Hollies "lesser" and probably should have used another paragraph for the sentence "For that matter, what about...". It would have read better. Yes, I consider these other groups to be part of my second tier of favorites.

The album, 'Surrealistic Pillow' is a great album, but I happen to like 'Pepper' better.

That's just my opinion and what constitutes my top tier is defintiely not going to be anyone else's.

Quote
ineedadrink
beetlemania is back!

It's definitely on it's way! The Beatles: Chapter II (featuring the sons) begins in 2013!

Quote
lsbz

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
lsbz

Quote
BBrownlie
What about The Hollies? A lesser group coming up with some decent stuff? For that matter, what about Cream, Jefferson Airplane, Love, The Moody Blues, Traffic, The Who, The Yardbirds? So much good stuff.

IMO, of those, the Hollies, Jefferson Airplane and possibly the Who were better groups than the Beatles. The Beatles often seem to be overrated as a group because of their songs, that were of a relatively high average quality.

You mean The Hollies, The Who and JAP had better songs than The Beatles?

No, that's what BBrownlie seemed to suggest; that they had better songs during that era. But he called them "lesser groups", and I thought some of them were better. If you ask me, Surrealistic Pillow is better than Pepper, but Evolution clearly isn't; it depends.

The Hollies' 'Evolution' is more comparable musically to 'Revolver' & 'Between The Buttons'; their real "answer" to Sgt. Pepper was the album 'Butterfly'. Here's the title track:







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-09-05 22:12 by Sleepy City.