Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2019 13:55:40 GMT -5
[A PSF survivor]
We all get those recommendations, or you browse the music forums and "best of" lists, yet you just can't get into that one (or ten) bands or albums that everyone says are essential. What are your stories with this? Here are some of mine:
First off, regarding the Beach Boys, I don't like Surf's Up (the album.) It has some cool moments, but overall it just dosen't do it for me. The title track is totally out of place too, and feels tacked on to me.
It's well known I'm not a big fan of Sgt Pepper. I think it's one of the Beatles' most uneven and weakest offerings. WYWY absolutely murders the momentum, GMGM is filler with ridiculous sound effects thrown in for the sake of it, 64's sparse production makes it stick out in a bad way...and A Day in the Life is pretentious as hell. Everyone claiming it's so DEEP can't give me one meaningful analysis of what it means. The list goes on. Still a good album but I don't buy the hype.
I made this thread initially because in the process of checking out a bunch of highly respected acts from the 60s and 70s, there were more than a few groups or albums which came highly recommended but I just didn't like. And somehow it made me feel bad, like I just didn't "get it" and the problem was with me. Some of the biggest examples were the Velvet Underground (I've heard their whole discography and I still don't get the hype), the 13th Floor Elevators and a few random one-off albums like Blood Moon and Christopher.
|
|
|
|
Post by g00dvibrations on Jan 13, 2019 14:56:49 GMT -5
Dylan. I've 5 albums and the only one I've properly liked is Highway 61 Revisited.
Re: Velvet Underground - I've only listened to the Velvet Underground and Nico, and while I thought it was alright, it also didn't live up to the hype for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jan 13, 2019 14:57:55 GMT -5
Beach Boys - Love You - I tried
Queen + Paul Rodgers - Cosmos Rocks - In 2008 when Brian May and Roger Taylor of Quuen put out an album with Paul Rodgers of Free and Bad Company, I was hoping for something at least good. But, there's really nothing memorable about it, and Rodgers was out of the band soon after.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2019 15:18:04 GMT -5
Dylan. I've 5 albums and the only one I've properly liked is Highway 61 Revisited. Re: Velvet Underground - I've only listened to the Velvet Underground and Nico, and while I thought it was alright, it also didn't live up to the hype for me. Dylan is another good one for me too. Admittedly I've only tried Highway 61 and Blonde on Blonde but neither appealed to me. I think his lyrics are really well written, but I don't care for his scratchy voice and use of the harmonica. (I really hate the sound of the harmonica.) With the Velvets, not only do I not particularly care for their music but in general they and their fans tend to rub me the wrong way based on past experiences. Dorothy Moskowitz is the lead singer of the United States of America, which is my favorite album and fave one-off 60s group. The USA toured with the Velvets once and according to an interview with her, the Velvets purposefully knocked over their sound equipment before a gig as a show of superiority. There's no cause for that kind of bullshit. To me it's just straight bullying the little-known up and comer act who didn't have the publicity or fanbase to fight back yet. I bought a book about the Velvets called All Yesterday's Parties but seriously couldn't get past the prologue. It was just endless self-aggrandizement about how they were the greatest band ever, no one else comes close and you're an idiot if you can't see it. One phrase in particular which made me roll my eyes was that "the Velvets were the only band along with the Beatles who ever met God." It's like something an edgy teenage poser would write, but I was meant to be captivated by it. On a personal note, I made a thread about how I couldn't get into the Velvets on PSF and someone there took offense and proceeded to spam it for two whole pages. Then they played dumb when I called them out on it. So, yeah. I hate the Velvets and thus far I hate the members of their fanbase I've come across. Based on everything I've personally seen, they come off like pretentious art school wannabes who can't handle criticism and are so far up their own ass they can't see the light of day. (No offense to any Velvet fans out there reading. I'm just talking about my own experiences thus far.) |
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2019 15:24:57 GMT -5
The Pixies. They were highly recommended to me by at least four of my friends who more or less "get" my taste in music, and their recommendations are usually spot on. I've listened to Surfer Rosa and Doolittle enough times to know that I just don't like them enough to finish their discography. I do love a handful of their songs -- Here Comes Your Man, Where Is My Mind? and Gigantic. I appreciate Cactus (though I think David Bowie's cover on the Heathen album is way, way better).
|
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jan 13, 2019 15:53:46 GMT -5
I'm a heavy metal fan, and I love most of the iconic bands. But, I can't get into Slayer. I don't feel like they offer as much melody as the other three bands in the big four - Anthrax, Megadeth, and Metallica.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Jan 13, 2019 16:41:18 GMT -5
The story of my music-loving life.
There was a time when the aforementioned VU and Bob Dylan were also on my "I don't get it" list. Both changed over time. (Belle & Sebastian and the Beach Boys both also switched sides.)
Pepper, I always did and presumably always will love.
But speaking of love, Love. I just don't like them. I think Forever Changes is pretentious, dated crap. OK, crap is an incendiary term. So to cool it down--hey! A VU reference!--I don't like Love. Neither do I like Neil Young, though it seems I ought to.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Jan 13, 2019 16:42:00 GMT -5
I'm a heavy metal fan, and I love most of the iconic bands. But, I can't get into Slayer. I don't feel like they offer as much melody as the other three bands in the big four - Anthrax, Megadeth, and Metallica. I don't know that I've ever heard anyone accuse Anthrax of having much melody! |
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2019 17:24:21 GMT -5
But speaking of love, Love. I just don't like them. I think Forever Changes is pretentious, dated crap. OK, crap is an incendiary term. So to cool it down--hey! A VU reference!--I don't like Love. Neither do I like Neil Young, though it seems I ought to.
Good to see you here, sir--in principle. Because really! Pretentious, dated crap?? Not the best of (re)entries onto a forum, is it?  I have come to love (no pun intended) that album. And its two predecessors were an important part of the soundtrack of my adolescence. So there you have it.  |
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2019 17:45:51 GMT -5
Good to see you here, sir--in principle. Because really! Pretentious, dated crap?? Not the best of (re)entries onto a forum, is it? I have come to love (no pun intended) that album. And its two predecessors were an important part of the soundtrack of my adolescence. So there you have it. Indeed. Personally, Forever Changes is one of my top favorite albums. It sounds like Pet Sounds but with a more understated arrangement and more philosophical lyrics. I could see the argument it's a tad pretentious but there are sprinkles of humor where you can see that Arthur Lee isn't above being silly. ("the snot has caked against my pants...") I don't like Love's first two albums nearly as much though. The first has more of a garage rock feel which just isn't my cup of tea. The second has some interesting tracks like "Stephanie Knows Who" and the singles "7 and 7 Is"/"Fourteen." But it didn't hold my interest all the way through. I haven't heard any of the other Love albums after the original lineup broke up. Any suggestions on that front jk ? |
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Jan 13, 2019 18:01:25 GMT -5
Well, I am what I am. 
But I wanted to comment on this, re VU:
Based on everything I've personally seen, they come off like pretentious art school wannabes who can't handle criticism and are so far up their own ass they can't see the light of day.
I think this is entirely correct. But that said, I don't think it warrants out-of-hand dismissal. Lou Reed in particular was nothing if not a pretentious, judgmental prick. But he was also a genius, and we have to figure out how to deal with those facts. I think Reed wanted the Velvets to combat the nonsensical, fairy tale ideas of psychedelia and hippiedom. And of (white American) blues rawk. So Reed--very much like Frank Zappa--wanted to piss on it all. And piss he did. (He also disliked Zappa at the time. I recall some quote from Reed that Zappa "thinks he's the only rock n roller who can read music.")
It's not to say the prevailing sounds and styles were inherently bad, or that VU and Reed were inherently good. But it was a valid pushback against something that could use a little pushing-back-against.
The result as I hear it is that when they were aiming high, it was dull and pretentious. And when they were writing rock'n'roll songs, they were good. I don't give a good goddamn about "Sister Ray," but I'd take "Who Loves the Sun?" all day, every day. Or "Sweet Jane."
|
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jan 13, 2019 21:45:06 GMT -5
I'm a heavy metal fan, and I love most of the iconic bands. But, I can't get into Slayer. I don't feel like they offer as much melody as the other three bands in the big four - Anthrax, Megadeth, and Metallica. I don't know that I've ever heard anyone accuse Anthrax of having much melody! Yes, they are more than just a mere thrash band, at least in the Belladonna years. |
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2019 22:33:40 GMT -5
1.) Sgt. Pepper--Beatles
Agree somewhat with leni on this one. It is very uneven, although I think A Day in the Life is actually one of its high points (pun may or may not be intended). And When I'm 64 is a bit too puke-inducingly cutesy for me.
2.) Dylan
I've tried hard to like his music, and have even played in bands performing his music, but I only like about a half dozen or so of his songs....mostly done by other artists.
3.) Steely Dan
I used to hear quite a few of their tunes on the radio, and I've dug into a few borrowed albums, but ultimately found them incredibly boring.
4.) Smiley Smile--Beach Boys
Nope, still not working for me, even after hearing it in stereo. And I like a lot of surreal music.....
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 0:13:23 GMT -5
Well, I am what I am.
But I wanted to comment on this, re VU:
I think this is entirely correct. But that said, I don't think it warrants out-of-hand dismissal. Lou Reed in particular was nothing if not a pretentious, judgmental prick. But he was also a genius, and we have to figure out how to deal with those facts. I think Reed wanted the Velvets to combat the nonsensical, fairy tale ideas of psychedelia and hippiedom. And of (white American) blues rawk. So Reed--very much like Frank Zappa--wanted to piss on it all. And piss he did. (He also disliked Zappa at the time. I recall some quote from Reed that Zappa "thinks he's the only rock n roller who can read music.")
It's not to say the prevailing sounds and styles were inherently bad, or that VU and Reed were inherently good. But it was a valid pushback against something that could use a little pushing-back-against.
The result as I hear it is that when they were aiming high, it was dull and pretentious. And when they were writing rock'n'roll songs, they were good. I don't give a good goddamn about "Sister Ray," but I'd take "Who Loves the Sun?" all day, every day. Or "Sweet Jane."
Im surprised a Velvets fan agreed with my summation! I was expecting to get chewed out but I just had to say it. See, that's part of what I don't like about them, personally. It's also part of what I hate about first gen punk rock as well--this cynical, too-cool-to-care, everyone's an idiot except for me attitude. (At least, that's the attitude I've always perceived from 60s-70s punk). The Free Love counterculture movement had its flaws and naivety, but it was still ultimately trying to change the world for the better and I can respect that. They got slandered a lot then and now, but at their core they wanted a more egalitarian world that's environmentally conscious, emotionally open and acknowledging that certain drugs can be therapeutic and even pseudo-religious when used with the proper set and setting. Personally I see nothing wrong with any of that--I think if they had won the cultural war then the world would have been a far better, more healthy and sustainable place to live in. Besides the complex and beautiful arrangements, this philosophical underpining is the big reason psych rock is my favorite genre of music-- because it was about more than just the music. Now that said, its not my cup of tea but I understand why a musical counterpoint to the production race was important. But you'd think, or hope, that there be a general respect among musicians. IE, I don't care if you don't like their message or style, you don't act like a bitch and mess with the other band's equipment on tour. That's not cool, or sending a message, it's being a jerk with no regard for other people's right of expression, or the craft itself. For me, the difference between Zappa and the Velvets is that Zappa wasn't tied down to that "back to basics"/"nevermind the bollocks" style of Lou Reed and the later punk movement. He experimented with all genres across his varied career. And with Freak Out! and We're Only In It For the Money, he made psychedelic rock as well as any other band ever did. (I'd also argue WOIIFTM is a better template for SMiLE than BWPS, but that's another topic...) What I particularly love about those albums is that they attack mainstream society ("Hungry Freaks Daddy," "Concentration Moon," "Lonely Little Girl," "Harry You're a Beast") as well as the hippies themselves ("Who Needs the Peace Corps," "Take Your Clothes Off When You Dance," "Absolutely Free," "Flower Punk.") Zappa was able to ride the line and call out both sides; unless there's some interview I haven't seen, I think calling him strictly anti-hippie is a mis-characterization. |
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 4:04:11 GMT -5
Indeed. Personally, Forever Changes is one of my top favorite albums. It sounds like Pet Sounds but with a more understated arrangement and more philosophical lyrics. I could see the argument it's a tad pretentious but there are sprinkles of humor where you can see that Arthur Lee isn't above being silly. ("the snot has caked against my pants...") I don't like Love's first two albums nearly as much though. The first has more of a garage rock feel which just isn't my cup of tea. The second has some interesting tracks like "Stephanie Knows Who" and the singles "7 and 7 Is"/"Fourteen." But it didn't hold my interest all the way through. I haven't heard any of the other Love albums after the original lineup broke up. Any suggestions on that front jk ?@iluvleniloud: None at all.  I tried Love 4 Sail but couldn't get into it and left it at the first three. I often stalled at the critical third album when buying them at the time (Love, The Doors, VU). To be honest it was your enthusiasm that prompted me to give Forever Changes another try after more years than I'd care to mention and one mellows it seems, tastes change and I fell in love with it. I bought Da Capo first, not long after Pet Sounds. Side one was great--to get vaguely back to topic,  I wanted to love the single track taking up side two but just couldn't get into it. Apparently, "Revelation" (speaking of pretentiousness!) is the sort of thing they often did live, just starting and seeing where it led. You can hear there are some wonderful musicians at work but it's a little threadbare to say the least. Still, side one was engaging enough to prompt me to buy their debut. I think it's a great little album, always have done. I'm not much of a garage fan either but I feel that here they lean more towards The Byrds than The Standells. Curiously, the extremely basic drummer on Love is in fact the proficient keyboard player you hear on Da Capo. This topic... There's no single album or band I've ever wanted to love but couldn't get into, which is why I haven't joined in before now. There's stuff I've been told to love, as in "every home should have one". The most recent example is Daft Punk's Random Access Memories. My son bought me a copy, basically for my musical education. I like the vocal loop in "Doin' It Right" because of the interesting lower voice line but the rest leaves me cold. (Except that the sound of vocoders singing sad stuff makes me giggle.) If I want Giorgio Moroder I go to Donna Summer and if I want Nile Rodgers I go to Chic. I seemed to have joined in.  |
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 4:23:04 GMT -5
jk Im glad I could turn you on to a great album! As for Revelation, I read a biography on Arthur Lee my second year in college. To be perfectly honest, I didn't finish the whole thing (not proud of it, but I had a bunch of other bios to get thru and after the FC sessions I lost interest.) But I do remember talking about the Da Capo era. According to interviews from fans/band roadies and stuff, the version on the album is by far the worst take of that track they ever did. In fact, the biography quotes liberally from Lee's never finished autobiography and even he says the same thing in no uncertain terms. It's a damn shame, because according to those who remember seeing the old Love shows, the live versions were really spectacular.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 4:39:19 GMT -5
jk Im glad I could turn you on to a great album! As for Revelation, I read a biography on Arthur Lee my second year in college. To be perfectly honest, I didn't finish the whole thing (not proud of it, but I had a bunch of other bios to get thru and after the FC sessions I lost interest.) But I do remember talking about the Da Capo era. According to interviews from fans/band roadies and stuff, the version on the album is by far the worst take of that track they ever did. In fact, the biography quotes liberally from Lee's never finished autobiography and even he says the same thing in no uncertain terms. It's a damn shame, because according to those who remember seeing the old Love shows, the live versions were really spectacular. Many thanks again, Cassandra.  A damn shame indeed about "Revelation". Maybe the fact that it wasn't recorded live at a gig cramped their inspiration and enthusiasm. Now you've got me curious enough to revisit it! |
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 4:41:01 GMT -5
jk Im glad I could turn you on to a great album! As for Revelation, I read a biography on Arthur Lee my second year in college. To be perfectly honest, I didn't finish the whole thing (not proud of it, but I had a bunch of other bios to get thru and after the FC sessions I lost interest.) But I do remember talking about the Da Capo era. According to interviews from fans/band roadies and stuff, the version on the album is by far the worst take of that track they ever did. In fact, the biography quotes liberally from Lee's never finished autobiography and even he says the same thing in no uncertain terms. It's a damn shame, because according to those who remember seeing the old Love shows, the live versions were really spectacular. Many thanks again, Cassandra. A damn shame indeed about "Revelation". Maybe the fact that it wasn't recorded live at a gig cramped their inspiration and enthusiasm. Now you've got me curious enough to revisit it! So many bands from the late sixties needed to release live albums and never did...  |
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jan 14, 2019 6:18:15 GMT -5
1.) Sgt. Pepper--Beatles Agree somewhat with leni on this one. It is very uneven, although I think A Day in the Life is actually one of its high points (pun may or may not be intended). And When I'm 64 is a bit too puke-inducingly cutesy for me. 2.) Dylan I've tried hard to like his music, and have even played in bands performing his music, but I only like about a half dozen or so of his songs....mostly done by other artists. 3.) Steely Dan I used to hear quite a few of their tunes on the radio, and I've dug into a few borrowed albums, but ultimately found them incredibly boring. 4.) Smiley Smile--Beach Boys Nope, still not working for me, even after hearing it in stereo. And I like a lot of surreal music..... Im right with you on 2, 3, and 4 |
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 9:17:16 GMT -5
My niece made me a very thorough comp CD of Dave Matthews. Since I have given my share of comp CD's to relatives, I gave this Dave Matthews' comp a good try, listening to it repeatedly in my car for a couple of weeks. Nope. I didn't like it/him. Don't like his voice, his sound, and I think his songs are...meh. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Jan 18, 2019 12:05:46 GMT -5
See, that's part of what I don't like about them, personally. It's also part of what I hate about first gen punk rock as well--this cynical, too-cool-to-care, everyone's an idiot except for me attitude. (At least, that's the attitude I've always perceived from 60s-70s punk). The Free Love counterculture movement had its flaws and naivety, but it was still ultimately trying to change the world for the better and I can respect that. They got slandered a lot then and now, but at their core they wanted a more egalitarian world that's environmentally conscious, emotionally open and acknowledging that certain drugs can be therapeutic and even pseudo-religious when used with the proper set and setting. Personally I see nothing wrong with any of that--I think if they had won the cultural war then the world would have been a far better, more healthy and sustainable place to live in. Besides the complex and beautiful arrangements, this philosophical underpining is the big reason psych rock is my favorite genre of music-- because it was about more than just the music. Now that said, its not my cup of tea but I understand why a musical counterpoint to the production race was important. But you'd think, or hope, that there be a general respect among musicians. IE, I don't care if you don't like their message or style, you don't act like a bitch and mess with the other band's equipment on tour. That's not cool, or sending a message, it's being a jerk with no regard for other people's right of expression, or the craft itself. For me, the difference between Zappa and the Velvets is that Zappa wasn't tied down to that "back to basics"/"nevermind the bollocks" style of Lou Reed and the later punk movement. He experimented with all genres across his varied career. And with Freak Out! and We're Only In It For the Money, he made psychedelic rock as well as any other band ever did. (I'd also argue WOIIFTM is a better template for SMiLE than BWPS, but that's another topic...) What I particularly love about those albums is that they attack mainstream society ("Hungry Freaks Daddy," "Concentration Moon," "Lonely Little Girl," "Harry You're a Beast") as well as the hippies themselves ("Who Needs the Peace Corps," "Take Your Clothes Off When You Dance," "Absolutely Free," "Flower Punk.") Zappa was able to ride the line and call out both sides; unless there's some interview I haven't seen, I think calling him strictly anti-hippie is a mis-characterization.
I wanted to respond to this and haven't yet (obviously) ... unfortunately including right now. But I do plan to, I swear. I'm not sure whether this is the best thread for that, or somewhere else, or a new one entirely. Anyway, ILLL (that doesn't roll off the fingertip-tongue, does it? I'll work on that.), I appreciate the thoughts, agree with some, and have assorted rebuttals to others. Reed and Zappa being two of my favorites, and very much connected in my mind, it may well be intolerably lengthy. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
|
Post by treatzapiza on Jan 24, 2019 23:31:49 GMT -5
I love Wagner's music. And I've tried and failed several times to sit through an entire act of one his operas. I mean, it's on youtube (with english subs) ,but maybe that's not indicative of my inability to enjoy -or not enjoy-his drama live in the flesh.
but I'm pretty sure it'd bore me in concert just as it does on the computer.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2019 7:40:04 GMT -5
I love Wagner's music. And I've tried and failed several times to sit through an entire act of one his operas. I mean, it's on youtube (with english subs) ,but maybe that's not indicative of my inability to enjoy -or not enjoy-his drama live in the flesh. but I'm pretty sure it'd bore me in concert just as it does on the computer. Know the feeling, H. But when you have recordings by Furtwängler, Knappertsbusch and others of RW's orchestral music... who needs opera? There's even an album of chunks from Wagner's Ring cycle sans vocals--I believe under Lorin Maazel. Worth checking out perhaps. |
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Jan 25, 2019 15:36:00 GMT -5
For me, the difference between Zappa and the Velvets is that Zappa wasn't tied down to that "back to basics"/"nevermind the bollocks" style of Lou Reed and the later punk movement. He experimented with all genres across his varied career. And with Freak Out! and We're Only In It For the Money, he made psychedelic rock as well as any other band ever did. (I'd also argue WOIIFTM is a better template for SMiLE than BWPS, but that's another topic...) What I particularly love about those albums is that they attack mainstream society ("Hungry Freaks Daddy," "Concentration Moon," "Lonely Little Girl," "Harry You're a Beast") as well as the hippies themselves ("Who Needs the Peace Corps," "Take Your Clothes Off When You Dance," "Absolutely Free," "Flower Punk.") Zappa was able to ride the line and call out both sides; unless there's some interview I haven't seen, I think calling him strictly anti-hippie is a mis-characterization. I really shouldn't have hyped this, because in the end I haven't gotten around to the full-scale, full-of-references response I meant to put together. Time has a way of slipping away as I get caught up in real life. But I do want to comment a little bit on this stuff, and hopefully will still get more in depth some other time.
Your differentiation between Zappa and the Velvets as Zappa's music being varied and the Velvets' music not being varied strikes me as incorrect. (It would be even more incorrect if we were talking Lou Reed or John Cale's solo careers, too, as opposed to just the Velvets' output.) Some of the songs I noted in the Lost Albums thread, I would say, demonstrate that. It's true that during the Velvets' lifetime, the production never was an emphasis in the way it was for psychedelic bands: they generally eschewed effects (other than distortion). There wasn't a ton of flanging, phasing, tons of echo. There tended not to be much in the way of instruments that weren't core to rock and roll: mostly guitars, bass, drums, viola, piano, and organ. There's some celeste. I think that's it. But they definitely were diverse in their styles. The album Loaded alone covers three or four genres. I think the whole "proto-punk" mythology that has grown around them is more about attitude than music ... or maybe more accurately, it's unfairly limiting, like saying Brian Wilson is a surf-musician. (If you include Reed's solo career, he covered a TON of musical territory. Admittedly not as broad a spectrum as Zappa, because nobody else did that, but more than the average musician, including the average musician with a decades-long career. I mean, he had Don Cherry, the avante garde jazz trumpeter, on his 1979 album The Bells. And he had Anohni [who I think was still calling herself Antony at the time] on his The Raven and live Berlin albums. That's just two examples of many.)
To me, "punk" implies a certain righteous, stupid anger. (I'm stoopid and proud of it.) And that's something the Velvets definitely weren't. They were cynical, sarcastic, and condescending--no doubt about that. But not stupid, and not only angry and rebellious, either. The lyrics have a lot of diversity, a lot of nuance. Reed was, at his best, a great writer.
Anyway, I think there is a lot more to them than you're giving them credit for, probably both musically and lyrically. If you haven't gone through the catalogue and don't want to spend a ton of time digging, I'd be happy to make you an album-length playlist that covers more ground.
Regarding Zappa and hippies, I'll have to revisit that, because this is already getting too long. But I think there I can actually provide some references to show he was pretty dismissive of them (at best). He was quite a libertarian capitalist, really, and anti-drug and a workaholic besides. So the hippie movement wasn't something he saw a lot of value in, from what I could tell, and he pretty consistently talked negatively about it. Not from the perspective of "the man," mind you. Just as a bad suggestion for an alternative culture.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2019 3:08:40 GMT -5
I really shouldn't have hyped this, because in the end I haven't gotten around to the full-scale, full-of-references response I meant to put together. Time has a way of slipping away as I get caught up in real life. But I do want to comment a little bit on this stuff, and hopefully will still get more in depth some other time.
Your differentiation between Zappa and the Velvets as Zappa's music being varied and the Velvets' music not being varied strikes me as incorrect. (It would be even more incorrect if we were talking Lou Reed or John Cale's solo careers, too, as opposed to just the Velvets' output.) Some of the songs I noted in the Lost Albums thread, I would say, demonstrate that. It's true that during the Velvets' lifetime, the production never was an emphasis in the way it was for psychedelic bands: they generally eschewed effects (other than distortion). There wasn't a ton of flanging, phasing, tons of echo. There tended not to be much in the way of instruments that weren't core to rock and roll: mostly guitars, bass, drums, viola, piano, and organ. There's some celeste. I think that's it. But they definitely were diverse in their styles. The album Loaded alone covers three or four genres. I think the whole "proto-punk" mythology that has grown around them is more about attitude than music ... or maybe more accurately, it's unfairly limiting, like saying Brian Wilson is a surf-musician. (If you include Reed's solo career, he covered a TON of musical territory. Admittedly not as broad a spectrum as Zappa, because nobody else did that, but more than the average musician, including the average musician with a decades-long career. I mean, he had Don Cherry, the avante garde jazz trumpeter, on his 1979 album The Bells. And he had Anohni [who I think was still calling herself Antony at the time] on his The Raven and live Berlin albums. That's just two examples of many.)
To me, "punk" implies a certain righteous, stupid anger. (I'm stoopid and proud of it.) And that's something the Velvets definitely weren't. They were cynical, sarcastic, and condescending--no doubt about that. But not stupid, and not only angry and rebellious, either. The lyrics have a lot of diversity, a lot of nuance. Reed was, at his best, a great writer.
Anyway, I think there is a lot more to them than you're giving them credit for, probably both musically and lyrically. If you haven't gone through the catalogue and don't want to spend a ton of time digging, I'd be happy to make you an album-length playlist that covers more ground.
Regarding Zappa and hippies, I'll have to revisit that, because this is already getting too long. But I think there I can actually provide some references to show he was pretty dismissive of them (at best). He was quite a libertarian capitalist, really, and anti-drug and a workaholic besides. So the hippie movement wasn't something he saw a lot of value in, from what I could tell, and he pretty consistently talked negatively about it. Not from the perspective of "the man," mind you. Just as a bad suggestion for an alternative culture. I dont mean to be dismissive of them, but their stuff all kinda blended together for me and didn't leave any strong impression, which is what I mean when I say it wasn't varied or interesting from my perspective. But Im sure if someone is into that genre there are nuances which I missed. I do maintain that Zappa was more varied in his output and you don't seem to disagree with that either. You do a good job describing their distaste for a lot of the aspects of pop music which usually appeal to me the most (different instruments and production techniques) so Im glad we agree on that too. I agree that punk, or proto-punk are as much if not more about the attitude than the music. That's a big part of why I put them in that category. However we disagree somewhat on exactly what that attitude is. Righteous, prideful stupidity is part of it. But I think it's more of a cynical apathy and "narcissistic nihilism." Again, the idea of being too cool to care, forgoing any kind of philosophy or policy goals so you'll never have to "lose" if they dont catch on. That it's stupid and pointless to get passionate about anything because life sucks--"can't get fooled again." And in my experience, the Velvets and the fans I've happened to interact with personally (besides yourself) tend to have that attitude in spades. Im sure the lyrics are well written, and maybe some of them buck the trend (perhaps more than Id realized) but that's still the overall vibe I get from them. I listened to their entire catalog including Squeeze so I have heard what they have to offer already. But that said, if you want to make a playlist of their best songs, or the ones you think most buck the trend I got from them, Id be happy to give it a listen. Whatever Zappa may have felt in his personal life, I maintain his music is still incredibly even-handed in terms of satirizing the hippies and squares. Im not a super-expert on his life and politics admittedly. I read most of his book before having to put it aside for school and then not getting back into it. (One of these days...) But based on what he's said about WOIIFTM specifically, I think he was more against the stupid parts of the hippie movement as opposed to its beginnings or core ideals. In the album, he's making fun of the losers going to San Fran for no reason except to be cool/because the song told them to. The ones who thought sleeping on Owsley's floor made them enlightened by proxy because he made acid. The kind of people who's dance around naked and thought they'd be the next Jefferson Airplane instead of actually doing something productive to get progressive policies enacted in government. I also think he was mostly throwing shade on the Beatles for jumping on the psychedelic/counterculture bandwagon despite living millionaire lifestyles and not having anything in common with hippies. That's where the title and cover come from. Its also worth noting that, in many if not all of the 60s artist biographies I read in college, almost all of them defamed the hippies. They were full of interviews of people associated with counterculture and rock music of that time all insisting they themselves were not hippies themselves. Unfortunately I forget the exact bio that said this, but one had an interview with someone who was alive in that scene and said "hippies were bad people--the kind of people who'd borrow money and never pay it back. Who'd demand you share your car because everything should be communal yet never have anything of their own worth sharing" or words to that effect. It may have been the same or a different bio, but another book I read mentioned how the hippies traveling to San Fran would rip the planks off people's fences for bonfires and pull the flowers out of someone's garden to wear in their hair. But these people saying all this were still pro-counterculture ideals. So what this extended anecdote is leading to is this: It was possible to be progressive, anti-Nixon/"the man" and pro-counterculture while still hating the hippies. It was always my impression that this was Zappa's position. I could be wrong but Id have to see a source to sway my opinion. |
|
I tried Love 4 Sail but couldn't get into it and left it at the first three. I often stalled at the critical third album when buying them at the time (Love, The Doors, VU). To be honest it was your enthusiasm that prompted me to give Forever Changes another try after more years than I'd care to mention and one mellows it seems, tastes change and I fell in love with it. 
I wanted to love the single track taking up side two but just couldn't get into it. Apparently, "Revelation" (speaking of pretentiousness!) is the sort of thing they often did live, just starting and seeing where it led. You can hear there are some wonderful musicians at work but it's a little threadbare to say the least. 
