SpookyNopetopus said:

laurarichardson said:

SpookyNopetopus said:

What's your point, here? Are you arguing with the point of my post, or what. Because if you are, you totally proved the point that Black people can be music snobs just like everyone else on the planet.

--Jesus dude you are the one carrying on about people getting mad if you are black and you like white groups. I am saying that is not always the case. Black like what they have bee exposed to who does not know The Doobie Bros, or Fame. I do not belive the Beatles ever had any of their music played in RnB stations it is about exposure.

I'm saying it's what happened in /my/ case, girl. You're the one acting like you're the only one who can speak on how Black people experience life. You don't like it, that's just too damn bad, I don't care.

SpookyNopetopus said:

laurarichardson said:

SpookyNopetopus said:

I'm saying it's what happened in /my/ case, girl. You're the one acting like you're the only one who can speak on how Black people experience life. You don't like it, that's just too damn bad, I don't care.

--I am not saying I speaking for all black people but if you honest you know black people are not checking for the Beatles. In fact I am Generation my Beatles was Prince and the Revolution.

As if I give a shit what black people are checking for, whateve the hell that even /means/, child. Since when were all black people like the same damn thing like we're the borg or some crap. I listen to them. I like them. You are free to dislike them or whatever the hell you want to do. Just stop pretending you know how all black people roll, girl, which is exactly what you're pretending right now.

ANYWAY, I'ma stop derailing this thread playing with you, chick.

feeluupp said:

SoulAlive said:

rdhull said:

Man, everyone heard the Beatles! I'm younger than he is/was and their music was and still is inescapable. Everyone heard the song Sgt Peppers and other dogs from it all the damn time. even bums the homeless the infirm the mentally ill etc

So true a person would have to be literally living under a rock to have not heard the Beatles,lol.

I don't think anyone is claiming to have never heard the Beatles. I've heard them but I've never listened to one of their albums. Some of their songs are ok but nothing I've heard has compelled me to seek out anything further.

Moonbeam said:

jaawwnn said:

Moonbeam said:

See, this is the kind of statement that goes way overboard. Yes, The Beatles had massively successful and influential albums. No, they are not solely responsible for albums being the standard for musical expression. There are albums that pre-date The Beatles which could be called "concept albums" and gained fame and success. I'm no fan of Frank Sinatra, but In the Wee Small Hours, from 1955, is one such album.

The overreaching "everything about music is the way it is becaue of The Beatles" narrative takes away from what they actually did achieve by cheapening the contributions of others.

No this is where you're wrong. The Beatles didn't invent the album, I never said that, but they made it an EVENT. There's a reason why everyone brought out high concept albums after it but not before. There's a a reason why suddenly the packaging and the art were all related and part of the experience and not interrupted by adverts for other albums on the record label. Loose song collections like In the Wee Small Hours or Harry Belafonte's Calypso (the first million selling album) are fantastic but didn't have the ambition or impact of Sgt Peppers. It's not even my fav Beatles album but personally I'm sick of people trying to rewrite history and minimize the impact it had.

That's not to say it didn't have a big impact. It did. But to contend that "we wouldn't be listening to albums if not for Sgt. Pepper's" as you did is a big overreach, IMO. People were recording and releasing classic albums before The Beatles and certainly before Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

According to acclaimedmusic.net, there are 10 albums among the most acclaimed 100 of all-time released before 1967.

It just doesn't make sense to argue that without Sgt. Pepper's, none of us would be listening to albums. The obvious implication of such a statement is that people wouldn't be making albums if not for this one particular highly influential album. That's just a huge stretch. Argue that it was impactful all you like, and you won't get a rebuttal from me.

Sgt. Pepper's was not the first concept album. It may have been the first commercially massive concept album. A few others were massive as well, some even more so, such as Dark Side of the Moon (another album I don't care for, FWIW).

People have to understand what the music industry was like in 1967. We only heard about new releases through statements from record companies and AM radio, basically. We didn't have the internet or 24-hour news channels. I remember hounding record stores for new releases I had heard about. MTV didn't start until 1981! '67 was the seminal year for IMO everything and The Beatles - who came on the American scene mere months after President Kennedy was murdered - changed the world. They really did. Unless you lived it, you don't know what it was like.

it was beyond whatever concept albums were before that, if there was such a term. they all changed their names for the record, changed their stories and pasts, changed their clothes, it was brilliant. also, they seemed to go through what prince went through too, not everyone liked the new music, that means white fans. My mom told me she thought it was wierd. some of the purist critics also thought they were abandoning rock and roll.

This is the album that began serious music criticism.

I think we have gotten off track here with the original notion. Yes, it was one of the most influential albums of the rock era. No, black folk weren't checking for them album-wise. No, they weren't the best rock or any type of band ever. Yes they got their influences and start covering the seminal black artists of the past that are the true architects of rock n roll (and everything that means).

But, yes, they were heard by DAMN near everyone whether or not you had or didnt have their albums, whether you were black, white, red, brown, the, purple and yellow (but first I gotta ..bang bang up jump th..oh wait a minute). And to think that Prince did not hear their music as most have, only to be introduced to them by someone of The Revolution, as was stated time and again is ri-godamn-iculous.

THE END


.

.

[Edited 5/31/17 9:34am]

that's right, i'll never believe it for a second. Yes prince may have been unfamiliar with some of their work, but no one could avoid hearing it. I grew up all around black folks, but beatles music was, I don't even know where, i just know that I'd heard it all my life. Maybe from passing cars, on store music stations, on tv, at the movie, i couldn't really tell you. All I can tell you is that once I did get into them, I recognized a lot of it. Prince, the guy who was always said to have been raised on top 40, in a city which didn't have one proper black station, surrounded and bussed to white schools, even had black friends who were into all white groups grandfunk railroad and james gang were amongst his crews faves, and groups who I couldn't tell you a single fucking song off of, Prince definitely heard some beatles. We know for a fact he was a Stones fan so how would he not be aware of the beatles. Prince hid some of his influences well, in fact, one of his earlier managers tried to say he "wanted to be Elvis" i'd been saying elvis was a main influence forever but no one believes that either.

Moonbeam said:

ufoclub said:

Moonbeam said:

rdhull said:

I remember watching a documentary on Netflix not too long ago about the evolution on Hip Hop... I think it was KRS ONE that said in the interview... "The Beatles, Evlis and Rolling Stones was for the white boys... Here in the hood no one rocked that, we had to come up with our own music, so that is why hip-hop started to emerge..."

Moonbeam said:

jaawwnn said:

Moonbeam said: No this is where you're wrong. The Beatles didn't invent the album, I never said that, but they made it an EVENT. There's a reason why everyone brought out high concept albums after it but not before. There's a a reason why suddenly the packaging and the art were all related and part of the experience and not interrupted by adverts for other albums on the record label. Loose song collections like In the Wee Small Hours or Harry Belafonte's Calypso (the first million selling album) are fantastic but didn't have the ambition or impact of Sgt Peppers. It's not even my fav Beatles album but personally I'm sick of people trying to rewrite history and minimize the impact it had.

That's not to say it didn't have a big impact. It did. But to contend that "we wouldn't be listening to albums if not for Sgt. Pepper's" as you did is a big overreach, IMO. People were recording and releasing classic albums before The Beatles and certainly before Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

According to acclaimedmusic.net, there are 10 albums among the most acclaimed 100 of all-time released before 1967.

It just doesn't make sense to argue that without Sgt. Pepper's, none of us would be listening to albums. The obvious implication of such a statement is that people wouldn't be making albums if not for this one particular highly influential album. That's just a huge stretch. Argue that it was impactful all you like, and you won't get a rebuttal from me.

Sgt. Pepper's was not the first concept album. It may have been the first commercially massive concept album. A few others were massive as well, some even more so, such as Dark Side of the Moon (another album I don't care for, FWIW).

I was obviously being a bit dramatic but we wouldn't be listening to albums in the same way if it weren't for Sgt Peppers. Sure, if it hadn't come along something else would have but the point is that it did come along. And yeah, many of my favourite albums came before it but that's neither here nor there, it's not about personal taste or retrospective discoveries.

As for Darkside, WTF an album from 1973 has to do with 1967 I don't know, who knows if it even would have existed if pop culture hadn't gone down the route it took with Sgt. Peppers.


I'm mostly with RDhull here although i think it's quite possible P knew the Beatles but didn't know Sgt. Peppers. it's also quite possible he did know it , Bobby Z said he didn't so i'm gonna trust him tbh

feeluupp said:

I remember watching a documentary on Netflix not too long ago about the evolution on Hip Hop... I think it was KRS ONE that said in the interview... "The Beatles, Evlis and Rolling Stones was for the white boys... Here in the hood no one rocked that, we had to come up with our own music, so that is why hip-hop started to emerge..."

bit of a weird quote. These lads were disenfranchised with 50's and 60's white music (fair enough, can't say I blame them) so they, what, stood around for a decade and created hip hop around 1980? What happened to the entire 70's in that story?

[Edited 6/3/17 15:50pm]

feeluupp said:

I remember watching a documentary on Netflix not too long ago about the evolution on Hip Hop... I think it was KRS ONE that said in the interview... "The Beatles, Evlis and Rolling Stones was for the white boys... Here in the hood no one rocked that, we had to come up with our own music, so that is why hip-hop started to emerge..."

So? DMC said he was into Zep, ACDC, Beatles and wasnt diggin James Brown etc. He wante to rock.

Yall monolith mugs kill me

ufoclub said:

Moonbeam said:

It sold more copies than Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and has comparable levels of critical acclaim. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it, but it probably is the pinnacle of the whole concept album concept.

Not in my opinion, and the album sales of Dark Side of the Moon in no way reflect its cultural or artistic impact. Just listen to the album and it's obviously not on the revolutionary level of Sgt Pepper, it's actually quite conventional 70's rock songs that are all cohesive and tied to the Pink Floyd brand as they went for a far more ear candy type sound then the experimental albums from their past. In many ways it was their 1999 with The Wall being their Purple Rain. I love the album but I know where it sits in my mind next to Sgt Peppers. After Sgt. Pepper, there rose a whole slew of concept albums that really became a staple (and now satirized) part of 70's art rock. Something like Emerson Lake and Palmer went completely nuts. In many ways Rainbow Children was a throwback to 7o's style art concept album very much with the kind of cohesiveness that Pink Floyd had, but a different genre of music flavor within.

I agree that Dark Side of the Moon sounds pretty conventional. The songs feel like over-inflated balloons that have lost all of their helium to me. That said, it had a massive impact - it hit number 1 in the US and didn't leave the charts for 15 years! Its sales edge shouldn't be brushed under the rug, either, IMO. It looks to have sold some 11-13 million more copies than Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

I'm not going to argue that Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band didn't have a massive impact - it quite obviously did. I just think it is a terrible album, the worst of the 3 Beatles albums I have heard and one of the most unpleasant albums I've ever sat through. I know that I'm missing out on something as it clearly has reached a lot of people. I'd say it could be a concept album thing, but I guess I think The Beatles were at their best (or least offensive, anyway), when they penned simple pop/rock tunes. If I want to go for experimental 60s stuff, I'd much rather turn to The Velvet Underground or Sun Ra or White Noise, I guess.

jaawwnn said:

I was obviously being a bit dramatic but we wouldn't be listening to albums in the same way if it weren't for Sgt Peppers. Sure, if it hadn't come along something else would have but the point is that it did come along. And yeah, many of my favourite albums came before it but that's neither here nor there, it's not about personal taste or retrospective discoveries.

As for Darkside, WTF an album from 1973 has to do with 1967 I don't know, who knows if it even would have existed if pop culture hadn't gone down the route it took with Sgt. Peppers.


I'm mostly with RDhull here although i think it's quite possible P knew the Beatles but didn't know Sgt. Peppers. it's also quite possible he did know it , Bobby Z said he didn't so i'm gonna trust him tbh

That's fine - it was obviously a very influential album. I brought up Dark Side of the Moon to suggest that there were concept albums that might have been bigger and more impactful, though I wasn't around at the time either was released to say, but album sales are in Pink Floyd's favor here and critical acclaim is pretty much a wash.

I agree that it's hard to envision Prince not having heard some Beatles songs at the very least - I certainly couldn't avoid them growing up. It doesn't seem that implausible that he might not have heard any of their full-length albums until The Revolution exposed him to them, though.

kinda just dismisses all the great r&b artists, a really stupid statement.

jaawwnn said:

Moonbeam said:

I was obviously being a bit dramatic but we wouldn't be listening to albums in the same way if it weren't for Sgt Peppers. Sure, if it hadn't come along something else would have but the point is that it did come along. And yeah, many of my favourite albums came before it but that's neither here nor there, it's not about personal taste or retrospective discoveries.

As for Darkside, WTF an album from 1973 has to do with 1967 I don't know, who knows if it even would have existed if pop culture hadn't gone down the route it took with Sgt. Peppers.


I'm mostly with RDhull here although i think it's quite possible P knew the Beatles but didn't know Sgt. Peppers. it's also quite possible he did know it , Bobby Z said he didn't so i'm gonna trust him tbh

feeluupp said:

I remember watching a documentary on Netflix not too long ago about the evolution on Hip Hop... I think it was KRS ONE that said in the interview... "The Beatles, Evlis and Rolling Stones was for the white boys... Here in the hood no one rocked that, we had to come up with our own music, so that is why hip-hop started to emerge..."

bit of a weird quote. These lads were disenfranchised with 50's and 60's white music (fair enough, can't say I blame them) so they, what, stood around for a decade and created hip hop around 1980? What happened to the entire 70's in that story?

[Edited 6/3/17 15:50pm]

Rolling Stone had an article where they were insinuating that Sgt. Peppers wasn't the best psychedelic album around, they mentioned Pink Floyds' pipers at the gates of dawn as a better one, I listened to that and couldn't get into it at all. The Beatles new stuff wasn't for everyone, the purist critics and some fans didn't like it. Lots of Prince's fans from Purple Rain were alienated with ATWIAD likewise. I however, never thought of ATWIAD as a great album, never. A few good tracks but not nearly a great album.

Moonbeam said:

jaawwnn said:

Moonbeam said: No this is where you're wrong. The Beatles didn't invent the album, I never said that, but they made it an EVENT. There's a reason why everyone brought out high concept albums after it but not before. There's a a reason why suddenly the packaging and the art were all related and part of the experience and not interrupted by adverts for other albums on the record label. Loose song collections like In the Wee Small Hours or Harry Belafonte's Calypso (the first million selling album) are fantastic but didn't have the ambition or impact of Sgt Peppers. It's not even my fav Beatles album but personally I'm sick of people trying to rewrite history and minimize the impact it had.

That's not to say it didn't have a big impact. It did. But to contend that "we wouldn't be listening to albums if not for Sgt. Pepper's" as you did is a big overreach, IMO. People were recording and releasing classic albums before The Beatles and certainly before Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

According to acclaimedmusic.net, there are 10 albums among the most acclaimed 100 of all-time released before 1967.

It just doesn't make sense to argue that without Sgt. Pepper's, none of us would be listening to albums. The obvious implication of such a statement is that people wouldn't be making albums if not for this one particular highly influential album. That's just a huge stretch. Argue that it was impactful all you like, and you won't get a rebuttal from me.

Sgt. Pepper's was not the first concept album. It may have been the first commercially massive concept album. A few others were massive as well, some even more so, such as Dark Side of the Moon (another album I don't care for, FWIW).

jaypotton said:

Interesting thread but one that, for many of the posters here, completely missed the point about music and whether something or someone is "good" and that is that it is completely subjective! If you like jazz or hip hop or heavy metal or funk etc then The Beatles are unlikely to be your taste! The influence of the Beatles MUST also take into account the context and era, ie. the 60s. Anyone claiming The Beatles were not influential is simply an idiot. They changed the face of POP music. While not unique, it was very rare in the early 1960s for bands or singers to also write their own music (and indeed play most of their own instruments). Before Sgt Pepper (actually I would argue Revolver) most (not all) artists released albums that were actually compilations of songs rather than coherent "albums". The fact that the biggest band in the planet started recording "albums" had a massive impact on artistic credibility. The other completely unarguable fact is that The Beatles are the most successful recording artist commercially ever, period. Simply by virtue of selling more records than anyone else ever means they are immensely influential! That doesn't mean you or anyone else has to like their music, far from it, but nobody who is right minded in the head can dismiss their influence and commercial success?

sales is also somewhat subjective, what is the measure? singles? albums? single albums? Everything? I once heard no one came close to Elvis for sales, not the Beatles or anyone. I don't know if that's true or not and it really doesn't matter too much to me. As for subjective,it's true but really, a great song is a great song but a listener has to do their part too and not be lazy or dismissive.

Those who did not live and were grown enough at that time can't say much really but look from afar and opine but that's it.

SoulAlive said:

tollyc said:

prince has covered the following: Help with my friends The long and winding road Come together While my guitar gently weeps I would love to see a soulful version of the white album covered.

"The Long & Winding Road" is one of my favorite songs! When did Prince cover it?

Mine too, but that performance with Elton was for me, terrible.

lust said:

Rumour has it. Prince rerecorded all the Beatles albums in their entirety and they were found in the vault.

No way.

SoulAlive said:

George Martin's son Giles is going to be on tonight's Jimmy Fallon show to talk about this box set. The episode might be on NBC's site once the show is over, or a clip on the Tonight Show's Youtube channel.

50 Years Later, Beatles' 'Sgt. Pepper' Back in Top Three
6/4/2017 by Keith Caulfield Billboard

.

The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band returns to the chart, re-entering at No. 3 with 75,000 units (up 2,062 percent) with 71,000 in traditional album sales (up 3,889 percent). It is the highest rank for the former No. 1 album since the Dec. 30, 1967-dated chart, when the set also placed at No. 3.

The album bounces back to the tally courtesy of its 50th anniversary reissue on May 26. The album was reissued in a variety of configurations, including some with a bevy of bonus tracks. It spent a total of 15 weeks atop the list back in 1967 -- the most weeks at No. 1 for any of The Beatles’ 19 chart-topping albums.

Sgt. Pepper’s’ re-entry also grants The Beatles its highest rank on the chart in more than 16 years. The band has been absent from the top three since the March 10, 2001-dated list, when the greatest hits album 1 was No. 3. (The album had previously spent eight weeks at No. 1.)