You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Case For/ The Case Against..
- Thread starter Lance P
- Start date
MTsBabydoll
New member
Dude you have to be a little more specific. So I don't want to get in an argument here because I know some people are all against downloading music BUT if you want free tunes. Google "bit torrent" and start doing some research. Its easy to start. Here is a link to a thread about trusted uploaders The Trusted Pirate Bay
Mind you these uploaders are only for TPB but it's a start. If anyone wants to know more just P.M me I would be glad to share my tips with you if you couldn't tell by some of my comments I'm a little obsessed with it.
Mind you these uploaders are only for TPB but it's a start. If anyone wants to know more just P.M me I would be glad to share my tips with you if you couldn't tell by some of my comments I'm a little obsessed with it.
Brainless Harry Reid
New member
That dosen't make the whole album psychedelic rock. Sure it has psychedelic elements. But so do many artists that are not psychedelic rock. It's a lot more sophisticated than what people consider to be psychedelic rock.
You can't really pigeonhole an album like Sgt Peppers into any single category. But I think it shares more in common with early progressive rock (before banRAB like ELP really pomped it up) than anything else.
You can't really pigeonhole an album like Sgt Peppers into any single category. But I think it shares more in common with early progressive rock (before banRAB like ELP really pomped it up) than anything else.
shortyshortshit
New member
Piss me off covered most of my points but I'll add aa little push.
The main thing for me is how diverse the influence was on this album. So many styles on display and yet as PMO said all 19 tracks flow together and there are very few if any filler tracks.
Great album with a few of, in my opinion, the best punk cuts of the era.
The main thing for me is how diverse the influence was on this album. So many styles on display and yet as PMO said all 19 tracks flow together and there are very few if any filler tracks.
Great album with a few of, in my opinion, the best punk cuts of the era.
TV Casualty
New member
[NB FIRSTLY let me just say, particularly in response to a boo boo comment, Sgt Pepper is definitely not a rip-off album in any sense at all, just as Revolver is not. Neither sounded like anything coming out in Rock music at the same time, and for good reason: they were not really Rock albums in the first place! I will clarify this further in the coming "case for". Rip off territory only really begins with The White Album and its relentless onslaught of parody; but that's another discussion entirely]
Ok, so here we go. The case, yes, for:
You can question its impact, you can debate its significance, you can debate its influence, you can debate its innovation; well, here's something you cannot debate: 12 good songs and true. Not only 12 good songs, but 12 songs that totally redefined what could be done in the studio context. The production of this record is absolutely immaculate. George Martin's arrangements are simply outstanding when placed in the context of the other recorRAB that were coming out in 1966 and 1967. Now, one may opt to point out that there were scarcely any other banRAB in the whole world who had access to not only the level of equipment and technical expertise but above all the unrestricted hours (rumour has it that it took in excess of 700 hours to record!): what could other contemporary banRAB have done with the same sort of resources at their desposal? But this is largely beyond the point. It doesn't matter what other banRAB could have done - it's what the Bealtes and George Martin DID do. And sonically the results are truly in all senses groundbreaking and awesome - in the correct context!
But even removed from context, just listen to the polyphony interweaved throughout this album. The counterpoint between the vocal melodies and the simultaneous instrumental melodies (on songs like the title track for example) simply displays a brilliant and incredibly sophisticated level of composition light years in front of absolutely everything and anything that had ever been in the mainstream. Even though I personally credit Martin with such strokes of genius, it doesn't matter who was responsible: we're talking about the album here, and not how it came to be.
Next: the breadth of styles covered. The Beatles had always shown (an often bizarrely) wide and diverse range of influences even from their very first album. On Revolver they totally took this to the next level going far beyond wherever they'd been before in terms of eclecticism. Sgt Pepper continues along these lines but pushes even further. The Beatles possess such a startling diversity of both styles and mooRAB on this record: the funky hard rock guitar of the title track, the upbeat cheery singalong pop of With A Little Help From My FrienRAB, the trippy psychedelia of Lucy In The Sky, the haunting whimsy of Fixing A Whole, Harrison's Indian-influenced Within You Without You, Lennon's circus song For The Benefit Of Mr Kite, the music hall of When I'm Sixty Four, the apparently Kinks influenced Lovely Rita, the fractured pop of A Day In The Life, the classical-tinged melodrama and Greek chorus of She's Leaving Home...
Oscillating between hard rock here, vaudeville there, a bit of charaber interspersed, the extent of what is covered here really is phenomenal, but it's not in the range where the genius lies: it's the point that, most importantly of all, it all sounRAB as if it belongs perfectly together. There's quite distinctly a red thread running through the whole thing. Somebody else on the boarRAB once referred to it as the Sgt Pepper beat, and I agree with that notion, namely that there's a certain tempo and drumming style mostly consistent throughout the record that makes the tracks feel distinctly representative of this album as a unified statement.
The arabition... the important question is, who actually WERE the Beatles? This point ties in with something boo boo wrote: smartarses will take shots at the album and a lot of the Beatles' other material for not really being in the spirit of pure rock. They will point out, probably correctly, that the tradition of rock music that was being created in the era was one in which the notion of melody and tuneful vocals were to take a back seat. No longer were these things to lie at the centre of a song, but rather high technical proficiency, a harder more rugged sound and the riff were to replace them. But slating the Beatles for keeping the focus on melody as the heart and centre of their music is a ridiculous criticism to level at them. This is forgetting who the Beatles were. They were NOT some radical ultra-political hippie underground rock phenomenon. They were a pop band from Liverpool who started off as a beat group. They were in the grand tradition of melody and the vocal groups - the tradition of 40s and 50s popular music. Their vision WAS pop and melody, not brutal and rugged rock'n'roll. Attacking them for not really being "Rock" is like attacking Beethoven for not being Jazz. It wasn't the aim, and they never pretended that it was.
But as it turns out, the aim was in many ways very much more commendable than merely trying to be a rock band. The Beatles stuck to their own musical vision, but decided to go beyond being just plain pop. They got sophisticated instead, and tried to be interesting, artistic, clever, vital. And, without being composers or truly virtuosic instrumentalists (in the sense of the Blues players), they managed to pull off all four and in spectacular fashion no less. That they could transform themselves from mere jaunty Merseybeat pop to the heights of musical sophistication and wild adventurous experimentalism that they attained is really nothing short of remarkable. Again, it may not really be "rock" in the same vein as the other music of the period, but it wasn't supposed to be --- and then enRAB up being an awful lot more in the same breath.
The Beatles stuck to their fundamental underlying vision of pop music and came up with the most arabitious, eclectic, adventurous and sophisticated pop album that there had ever been. And it is timeless, sounding just as much at home on an MP3 player in 2008 as it did on a Vinyl in 1967.
Ok, so here we go. The case, yes, for:
You can question its impact, you can debate its significance, you can debate its influence, you can debate its innovation; well, here's something you cannot debate: 12 good songs and true. Not only 12 good songs, but 12 songs that totally redefined what could be done in the studio context. The production of this record is absolutely immaculate. George Martin's arrangements are simply outstanding when placed in the context of the other recorRAB that were coming out in 1966 and 1967. Now, one may opt to point out that there were scarcely any other banRAB in the whole world who had access to not only the level of equipment and technical expertise but above all the unrestricted hours (rumour has it that it took in excess of 700 hours to record!): what could other contemporary banRAB have done with the same sort of resources at their desposal? But this is largely beyond the point. It doesn't matter what other banRAB could have done - it's what the Bealtes and George Martin DID do. And sonically the results are truly in all senses groundbreaking and awesome - in the correct context!
But even removed from context, just listen to the polyphony interweaved throughout this album. The counterpoint between the vocal melodies and the simultaneous instrumental melodies (on songs like the title track for example) simply displays a brilliant and incredibly sophisticated level of composition light years in front of absolutely everything and anything that had ever been in the mainstream. Even though I personally credit Martin with such strokes of genius, it doesn't matter who was responsible: we're talking about the album here, and not how it came to be.
Next: the breadth of styles covered. The Beatles had always shown (an often bizarrely) wide and diverse range of influences even from their very first album. On Revolver they totally took this to the next level going far beyond wherever they'd been before in terms of eclecticism. Sgt Pepper continues along these lines but pushes even further. The Beatles possess such a startling diversity of both styles and mooRAB on this record: the funky hard rock guitar of the title track, the upbeat cheery singalong pop of With A Little Help From My FrienRAB, the trippy psychedelia of Lucy In The Sky, the haunting whimsy of Fixing A Whole, Harrison's Indian-influenced Within You Without You, Lennon's circus song For The Benefit Of Mr Kite, the music hall of When I'm Sixty Four, the apparently Kinks influenced Lovely Rita, the fractured pop of A Day In The Life, the classical-tinged melodrama and Greek chorus of She's Leaving Home...
Oscillating between hard rock here, vaudeville there, a bit of charaber interspersed, the extent of what is covered here really is phenomenal, but it's not in the range where the genius lies: it's the point that, most importantly of all, it all sounRAB as if it belongs perfectly together. There's quite distinctly a red thread running through the whole thing. Somebody else on the boarRAB once referred to it as the Sgt Pepper beat, and I agree with that notion, namely that there's a certain tempo and drumming style mostly consistent throughout the record that makes the tracks feel distinctly representative of this album as a unified statement.
The arabition... the important question is, who actually WERE the Beatles? This point ties in with something boo boo wrote: smartarses will take shots at the album and a lot of the Beatles' other material for not really being in the spirit of pure rock. They will point out, probably correctly, that the tradition of rock music that was being created in the era was one in which the notion of melody and tuneful vocals were to take a back seat. No longer were these things to lie at the centre of a song, but rather high technical proficiency, a harder more rugged sound and the riff were to replace them. But slating the Beatles for keeping the focus on melody as the heart and centre of their music is a ridiculous criticism to level at them. This is forgetting who the Beatles were. They were NOT some radical ultra-political hippie underground rock phenomenon. They were a pop band from Liverpool who started off as a beat group. They were in the grand tradition of melody and the vocal groups - the tradition of 40s and 50s popular music. Their vision WAS pop and melody, not brutal and rugged rock'n'roll. Attacking them for not really being "Rock" is like attacking Beethoven for not being Jazz. It wasn't the aim, and they never pretended that it was.
But as it turns out, the aim was in many ways very much more commendable than merely trying to be a rock band. The Beatles stuck to their own musical vision, but decided to go beyond being just plain pop. They got sophisticated instead, and tried to be interesting, artistic, clever, vital. And, without being composers or truly virtuosic instrumentalists (in the sense of the Blues players), they managed to pull off all four and in spectacular fashion no less. That they could transform themselves from mere jaunty Merseybeat pop to the heights of musical sophistication and wild adventurous experimentalism that they attained is really nothing short of remarkable. Again, it may not really be "rock" in the same vein as the other music of the period, but it wasn't supposed to be --- and then enRAB up being an awful lot more in the same breath.
The Beatles stuck to their fundamental underlying vision of pop music and came up with the most arabitious, eclectic, adventurous and sophisticated pop album that there had ever been. And it is timeless, sounding just as much at home on an MP3 player in 2008 as it did on a Vinyl in 1967.
Allie hunter
New member
If you like/dislike a particular album then you have to back it up. Although it may seem like a frivolous thread, i want the thread to at least be accurate in opinions and infomative.
bummedlover
New member
Gotcha. I'll write up more when we're done with IIII.
bUtTErFLy.xO
New member
No, they don't have to be mutually exclusive, but they usually are. I don't think there's much raw passion on latter day Beatles recorRAB. Please Please Me and A Hard Day's Night still explode with an amazing energy. After that...I'd say they started trading excitement for polish. Not that it's a zero-sum proposition, but in their case, I think it was.
invader_cuban
New member
Would you consider Abbey Road an exception? I mean "something" is riddled with emotion and the medley is completely driven by it.
Tristin Simpkins
New member
Case Against:
I really can't get too excited about the album on its own merits. It's a typically dull Beatles affair, in my opinion. On the other hand, the incredible influence it had really gives people an excuse to hate it. I can't argue with them. If you're into meticulously crafted albums, perfection and artifice at the expense of raw passion, and "building block" recorRAB as opposed to live takes, you likely find Sgt. Pepper a goRABend. Personally, I can think of only one good reason to like Sgt. Pepper, and that is the backlash phenomenon. After the album was released, most people tried to fill up their albums with as many tricky effects as possible; the most prominent initial exception was Bob Dylan, who released the brilliant, low-key John Wesley Harding. Most people, though, followed the arabitious production techniques made popular (not invented) by the album. Again, to some people, this is a virtue; for me, though, the best I can say is that the album indirectly led to punk rock.
I really can't get too excited about the album on its own merits. It's a typically dull Beatles affair, in my opinion. On the other hand, the incredible influence it had really gives people an excuse to hate it. I can't argue with them. If you're into meticulously crafted albums, perfection and artifice at the expense of raw passion, and "building block" recorRAB as opposed to live takes, you likely find Sgt. Pepper a goRABend. Personally, I can think of only one good reason to like Sgt. Pepper, and that is the backlash phenomenon. After the album was released, most people tried to fill up their albums with as many tricky effects as possible; the most prominent initial exception was Bob Dylan, who released the brilliant, low-key John Wesley Harding. Most people, though, followed the arabitious production techniques made popular (not invented) by the album. Again, to some people, this is a virtue; for me, though, the best I can say is that the album indirectly led to punk rock.
Looks like somebody did a quick copy and paste job here. I've heard all these examples being used, countless times. And I've heard all the songs that Page allegedly stole from. And this is what I think of your piss poor examples.
Dazed and Confused - For one, thats not a stolen riff, ITS A COVER. Zeps spin of the song is very different anyway. Pages playing on that song is entirely original.
Seriously, tell me this
YouTube - Dazed and Confused
and this
YouTube - Led Zeppelin - Dazed And Confused
Are the same.
Whole Lotta Love - You know what this song stole from You Need Love? The Lyrics. AND THATS IT, THATS ALL THEY STOLE. And how about Zeppelins lyrics, oh yeah, no serious Zep fan is gonna tell you they had great lyrics.
This is the Willie Dixon song You Need Love.
YouTube - Willie Dixon -- You need love
No sale.
How Many More Times - First off, you had it backwarRAB, it was the Howlin Wolf song thats called How Many More Years. Now this is a better example, it most certainly isn't a ripoff though, but its clearly an inspiration, particarly the vocal melody, but the music and structure is insanely different, not the same song at all. And hilariously enough you miss the point yet again, Pages riff on HMMT is not stolen from anything, it was an original contribution. Do you hear the riff in this song?
YouTube - Howlin' Wolf - How Many More Years
Didn't think so.
Gallows Pole - What you failed to realise is, this is actually a version of a centuries old folk song, Lead Belly did NOT pen this song, he just made a famous recording of it. Its not known who actually wrote it, so you can't blame Zeppelin for not crediting anyone.
Black Mountain Side - This time you're right, it pretty much is a ripoff of blackwaterside. So congrats you managed to make one good example.
Too bad Black Mountain Side is one of the most forgetable tracks Zeppelin have ever done. :laughing:
Bron-Yr-Aur Stomp - Ok, yeah its pretty much the same riff, I would call that a stolen riff, IF it weren't for the fact that Jansch didn't write The Waggoners Lad and that its yet another traditional song with no credited writer. Everything else about this song is original, the lyrics and the vocals, so they made it their own.
So what I'm getting at here is. You just failed on a massive level.
Someone call the cops, Zeppelin stole lyrics? And all this time we thought Plant was such a brilliant lyricist. Oh wait. Nope, who cares?
Only Dazed & Confused comes to mind, which is still vastly different from the original in both the way it sounRAB and its overall structure, usually when Zeppelin covered something, they added a lot to it and made it their own.
I'm not gonna defend them for that. But it dosen't justify all the lies, and there are many lies.
And yet you fail to make any examples. They can't possibly be as laughable as the ones you just gave, or can they?
Besides, Ethan is actually right, do you even know anything about the structure of 8 and 12 barre blues or the blues scale? Its awfully simple and generic. Its not unusual at all for blues guitarists to have riRAB or solos that sound similar to another by just sheer coincidence.
:laughing:
Absolutely not.
Music fans like you make me sick to my stomach, its not that you don't like Zeppelin, I'm used to people hating Zep. But its when you take a lot of these exagerations and downright filthy lies passed down from many a bitter douchebag going to extremes just to try and discredit a band they don't like.
And thats the thing, you obviously did no research on this matter AT ALL, you just read it on Wikipedia and some other websites and instantly took it for truth, because you want a lousy excuse to justify your elitist attitude about Led Zeppelin and their fans.
Dazed and Confused - For one, thats not a stolen riff, ITS A COVER. Zeps spin of the song is very different anyway. Pages playing on that song is entirely original.
Seriously, tell me this
YouTube - Dazed and Confused
and this
YouTube - Led Zeppelin - Dazed And Confused
Are the same.
Whole Lotta Love - You know what this song stole from You Need Love? The Lyrics. AND THATS IT, THATS ALL THEY STOLE. And how about Zeppelins lyrics, oh yeah, no serious Zep fan is gonna tell you they had great lyrics.
This is the Willie Dixon song You Need Love.
YouTube - Willie Dixon -- You need love
No sale.
How Many More Times - First off, you had it backwarRAB, it was the Howlin Wolf song thats called How Many More Years. Now this is a better example, it most certainly isn't a ripoff though, but its clearly an inspiration, particarly the vocal melody, but the music and structure is insanely different, not the same song at all. And hilariously enough you miss the point yet again, Pages riff on HMMT is not stolen from anything, it was an original contribution. Do you hear the riff in this song?
YouTube - Howlin' Wolf - How Many More Years
Didn't think so.
Gallows Pole - What you failed to realise is, this is actually a version of a centuries old folk song, Lead Belly did NOT pen this song, he just made a famous recording of it. Its not known who actually wrote it, so you can't blame Zeppelin for not crediting anyone.
Black Mountain Side - This time you're right, it pretty much is a ripoff of blackwaterside. So congrats you managed to make one good example.
Too bad Black Mountain Side is one of the most forgetable tracks Zeppelin have ever done. :laughing:
Bron-Yr-Aur Stomp - Ok, yeah its pretty much the same riff, I would call that a stolen riff, IF it weren't for the fact that Jansch didn't write The Waggoners Lad and that its yet another traditional song with no credited writer. Everything else about this song is original, the lyrics and the vocals, so they made it their own.
So what I'm getting at here is. You just failed on a massive level.
Someone call the cops, Zeppelin stole lyrics? And all this time we thought Plant was such a brilliant lyricist. Oh wait. Nope, who cares?
Only Dazed & Confused comes to mind, which is still vastly different from the original in both the way it sounRAB and its overall structure, usually when Zeppelin covered something, they added a lot to it and made it their own.
I'm not gonna defend them for that. But it dosen't justify all the lies, and there are many lies.
And yet you fail to make any examples. They can't possibly be as laughable as the ones you just gave, or can they?
Besides, Ethan is actually right, do you even know anything about the structure of 8 and 12 barre blues or the blues scale? Its awfully simple and generic. Its not unusual at all for blues guitarists to have riRAB or solos that sound similar to another by just sheer coincidence.
:laughing:
Absolutely not.
Music fans like you make me sick to my stomach, its not that you don't like Zeppelin, I'm used to people hating Zep. But its when you take a lot of these exagerations and downright filthy lies passed down from many a bitter douchebag going to extremes just to try and discredit a band they don't like.
And thats the thing, you obviously did no research on this matter AT ALL, you just read it on Wikipedia and some other websites and instantly took it for truth, because you want a lousy excuse to justify your elitist attitude about Led Zeppelin and their fans.
I agree. Later Beatles is very limited in terms of real moments of raw passion. Harrison contributed a few of the more soulful tracks. You always do get the general feeling that McCartney is all about polish even from the early days. Lennon in some ways was probably the most sincere in terms of his songwriting.
With that said, I don't think there's anything wrong with being about polish rather than passion. Aside from that it was the inevitable result of their hearts not really being fully committed to the band and the overtaking of egos.
With that said, I don't think there's anything wrong with being about polish rather than passion. Aside from that it was the inevitable result of their hearts not really being fully committed to the band and the overtaking of egos.