I don't get it. It just seems like a bunch of pop songs with "weird" effects over them. I was told this album was "experimental" and the best Beatles album but it just seems like a bunch of normal mundane tunes. It's ok, but in 1967, you also had albums like Safe As Milk, The Velvet Underground and Nico, and the Piper at the Gates of Dawn, which are all better than this.
What am I missing Sup Forums? If this is the best the Beatles has to offer, I'm not sure if I want to explore their other albums, honestly. The "experimental" part on this album also feels ungenuine to me, like a gimmick.
I agree. I like it but I have no fucking clue how people say its the ''Greatest album of all time''
Joshua Wood
It's still a good album, but it's not their best and I'm not sure why it's considered so.
Angel Campbell
>enjoys music >wont listen to The Beatles because Sgt P wasnt good enough for him
dont explore them then i dont give a shit
Hudson Perez
Also try Abbey Road if you are looking for a straight up rock album Magical Mystery tour is more psychedelic than peppers. Revoler is great too.
Zachary Moore
Those other albums were out, yeah. But this one was made by the biggest band in the world at the time. This album is the pinnacle of what the Beatles took they're fans through, from screaming girls, through to rad music loving hippy people we know and love from the 60s. This album actually changed the times. That's why it's one of the greatest.
Alexander Murphy
>Safe As Milk released after peppers >The Velvet Underground and Nico worst than peppers >Piper at the Gates of Dawn released after peppers >What am I missing Sup Forums good taste
Tyler Williams
>The "experimental" part on this album also feels ungenuine to me, like a gimmick. That's because it is.
If you want a really great 1967 concept album, listen to The Who Sell Out. It's among the Who's greatest works, and the concept is done far better and isn't gimmicky.
Levi Carter
Piper was recorded simultaneously in Abbey Road
Wyatt Morales
>Not liking pop >Missing good taste
Gabriel Mitchell
>The "experimental" part on this album also feels ungenuine to me, like a gimmick. What did you really expect from a pop band? Listen to We're Only In It For The Money, if you want to hear a spoof Sgt. Peppers, satire and genuine experimentation.
Hunter Bailey
It's not just a pop album you pleb, it has rock, pop, psychedelia, art rock, baroque pop and is proto-progressive.
Austin Ross
Nah, you're thinking of The Who Sell Out.
Jack Hernandez
>safe as milk has nothing to do with sgt.peppers,don't know why you mentioned it you butthurt scaruffi hater >Velvet underground and nice ALOT better then peppers,not even a debate. no song in peppers breaks the rock structure (tho you must agree with wikipidea when they say that "karma police" was revolutionary for not having a choros lol) >pippers PF have had EPs out way befor sgt.p was to a project
even if all those points were true,you didn't say anything good about the album. the longest song is A day in a life,and to be that song is prof that experimental=/= inventive. it's as cliche as it gets with a failed attempt at playing with cacophony,which the Beatles never,ever toyed with successfully
Brody Brooks
>Nah good argument >you're thinking of The Who Sell Out. great album, but sgt peppers has more variation and ambition
Hunter White
Expecting it to actually be "experimental" was your first mistake, it's just a really good pop record.
Brandon Turner
this album is experimental as fuck you've just all heard it a million times and have no point of reference
it's a magical concert with diegetic audience field recordings, an autistic singing drummer, a hit song about LSD, casual 5/4 hard rock, like a hundred instruments, a pop song based around a sitar drone, and one of the greatest endings of all time. also i'm pretty sure they invented like ten new techniques just to record this record. or maybe that was revolver. well anyway the beatles complained until ADR was invented.
Ayden Brooks
>ADR i mean ADT
Jeremiah Thomas
>no song in peppers breaks the rock structure i guess you never made it to within you without you. and i don't think "breaking the rock structure" was the point of sgt peppers anyway, it did help redefine what a pop album could be though. pet sounds is the only other pop album that made as big of an impact as sgt. peppers did in the pop world.
Hudson Brooks
sgt peppers is also considered one of the earliest "concept albums" even though only 3 songs really have anything to do with the concept.
Julian Perez
THE
Justin Bell
where does within and without you break anything? it's essentially the commercial version of Venus in furs. also this it's nice you mention pet sounds,because the beach boys are the ones to credit for the 65-70 pop revolution,not the Beatles. I don't hate sgt.peppers, it's a nice album to listen to when you don't wanna think about anything and just want a nice,calming and cheap experience of music.
Nicholas Ross
>has nothing to do with sgt.peppers,don't know why you mentioned it you butthurt scaruffi hater you mentioned first >ALOT better then peppers,not even a debate. no song in peppers breaks the rock structure what the fuck? do you even play an instrument or know music theory? sgt peppers broke rock struture in such a way that it literally legitimized rock music as an art form, using a lot of revolutionary techniqhes like linking up two four-track recorders to make an eight-track machine. velvet underground has no inovations, just shitty pop and "punk" songs that were nothing new, the first song is even a plagiarized buddy holly song(everyday) >the longest song is A day in a life,and to be that song is prof that experimental=/= inventive. it's as cliche as it gets with a failed attempt at playing with cacophony,which the Beatles never,ever toyed with successfully if is so cliche name one radio-banned song before 1967 that has two lead singers, no verse/chorus/verse/chorus structure, has two 30 seconds orchestral portions, key changes and a final 40 second chord. A day in the life is one of the most ambitious, influential, and groundbreaking works in pop history
Alexander Harris
>has nothing to do with sgt.peppers,don't know why you mentioned it you butthurt scaruffi hater you mentioned it first >ALOT better then peppers,not even a debate. no song in peppers breaks the rock structure what the fuck? do you even play an instrument or know music theory? sgt peppers broke rock struture in such a way that it literally legitimized rock music as an art form, using a lot of revolutionary techniques like linking up two four-track recorders to make an eight-track machine. velvet underground has no inovations, just shitty pop and "punk" songs that were nothing new, the first song is even a plagiarized buddy holly song(everyday) >the longest song is A day in a life,and to be that song is prof that experimental=/= inventive. it's as cliche as it gets with a failed attempt at playing with cacophony,which the Beatles never,ever toyed with successfully if is so cliche name one radio-banned song before 1967 that has two lead singers, no verse/chorus/verse/chorus structure, has two 30 seconds orchestral portions, key changes and a final 40 seconds chord. A day in the life is one of the most ambitious, influential, and groundbreaking works in pop history
Gavin Martin
>do you play an instrument or know music theory Yes,both. it is you who clearly knows absolutely nothing of music theory. At least the music theory behind albums such as the velvet underground and nico. And the reason why you don't know it's pretty simple: VU are still ahead of their time. In fact most great rock music is still ahead of their time,heck bebop's theory of music started being taught in the 70s-almsot 30 years before it's begining. The study of distortion,cacophony,kraut-rock's minimalism(which started in the velvet underground) is something that is probably beyond you,so go study you cadences and your bi-tonality. those concepts were far from being at the edgy of revolution in the 60s. (Debussy wasn't even born in the 20th century). the problem with you is that you talk about the history of pop music. To me there is the history of music. weather or not an album is revolutionary in "pop" standard is irrelevant.
You claim that a day in a life is revolutionary due to it's key changes? Cecil taylor's nerfertiti lives in the fine line between tonal and atonal music, semi-polyphonic cacophony. That's revolutionary. stick to your 6th grade music level you fucking pleb.
Jason Hughes
>The study of distortion,cacophony(which started in the velvet underground) Holy shit, you are a fucking pleb. They were a bunch of dumb musicians that couldn't even read a clef, they made nothing new
James Sullivan
All the music mentioned in this thread is garbage.
Sebastian Carter
I didn't fucking say that the study of cacophony was started by VU I said kraut-rock-like minimalism was you autistic piece of shit. stop lying in order to win a fucking argument on the internet,grow up,study and learn.
>name one radio-banned song before 1967 that has two lead singers, no verse/chorus/verse/chorus structure, has two 30 seconds orchestral portions, key changes and a final 40 seconds chord
Ayden Richardson
>velvet underground has no inovations I'm not the person you replied to but if you actually listened to VU&N you'd realise the drone elements in venus in furs and heroin created by John Cale's viola You'd realise the noise elements in heroin (towards the end), black angel death song and european son. You'd also realise Lou Reeds straight forward and emotive lyricism that described subjects usually deemed to vulgar to be sung about
The drone and noise elements were not new to music in general, being predated by john cales work with theatre of eternal music, but it's involvement with conventional rock music and especially psychedelic music was
>four-track recorders to make an eight-track machine Wow, so innovative/experimental. Anyone could have done that it's so easy. Nobody needed to
Benjamin Cruz
*too
Anthony Russell
you are a moron
Chase Ortiz
You sure cleared up the confusion about your post now.
David Allen
>I'm not the person you replied to but if you actually listened to VU&N you'd realise the drone elements in venus in furs and heroin created by John Cale's viola There were drone elements even in Beatles songs for god's sake, did you ever heard tomorrow never knows? >You'd realise the noise elements in heroin (towards the end), black angel death song and european son. ever heard tomorrow never knows, walking in the rain, freak out or pet sounds? >You'd also realise Lou Reeds straight forward and emotive lyricism that described subjects usually deemed to vulgar to be sung about holy fuck, in 1967 this is innovative? there must be hundreds of songs with emotive lyricism that described subjects usually deemed to vulgar to be sung about at this point >but it's involvement with conventional rock music and especially psychedelic music was bullshit and I proved to you >Wow, so innovative/experimental. Anyone could have done that it's so easy. Nobody needed to I'm not even responding to that
Colton Gonzalez
>There were drone elements even in Beatles songs for god's sake, did you ever heard tomorrow never knows? For a start you can barely hear the drone in tomorrow never knows. It's not even used as a major part of the song it's turned down so low. Maybe thats just the mix I'm listening to, not sure ever heard tomorrow never knows, walking in the rain, freak out or pet sounds? There are no noise elements in any of those, holy shit. What do you call noise? >noise in pet sounds I'm laughing in real life, it's that stupid >holy fuck, in 1967 this is innovative? there must be hundreds of songs with emotive lyricism that described subjects usually deemed to vulgar to be sung about at this point Find one artist with similar lyrical style to lou reed before 1967, also a song that deals with something like sexual domination head on like that does >bullshit and I proved to you No, you just named mucore albums and claimed they had noise elements. Seriously, pet sounds? Show me the song >I'm not even responding to that Good
Camden Miller
it's pointless to argue with dumb contrarians such as yourself. but yes kraut rock is a kind of minimalism. it is pretty obvious if you thing of bands like tang.dream
Carson Flores
>"I just don't understand Sgt.Pepper's, what am I missing, mu/? When did this become an argument about two universally acclaimed bands and which ones sucks? Lou Reed hated the Beatles and The Beatles didn't care about Lou Reed or the Velvets. End of story. Music is a subjective art form and we all have our own opinions so stop acting like fucking children.
Lucas Morgan
>For a start you can barely hear the drone in tomorrow never knows It's not my fault if you have poor hearing >It's not even used as a major part of the song it's turned down so low holy shit, the tamboura is playing in the whole song >There are no noise elements in any of those, holy shit. What do you call noise? there is no noise elements in tomorrow never knows? read at least the fucking wikipedia article if you want know what noise is, in fact even in the 1930s there was noise in pop music >Find one artist with similar lyrical style to lou reed before 1967, also a song that deals with something like sexual domination head on like that does the seeds youtube.com/watch?v=IReb27tFqMg youtube.com/watch?v=-gFSAyzx4Oc almost every seeds song is about sexual domination >No, you just named mucore albums and claimed they had noise elements. Seriously, pet sounds? Show me the song youtube.com/watch?v=lSoM2sJ4N1M bicycle horns
Noah Rogers
>What am I missing Sup Forums? The superior album.
Andrew Clark
>It's not my fault if you have poor hearing It's audible at the beginning but as soon as they start singing, they push it so low in the mix >holy shit, the tamboura is playing in the whole song Just because it's there doesn't mean it's given any priority >there is no noise elements in tomorrow never knows? read at least the fucking wikipedia article if you want know what noise is, in fact even in the 1930s there was noise in pop music For a start there is no page on anything but noise music which doesn't mention anything like what you suggest >the seeds Not really the same style at all and not really about sexual domination but I'll let it slide because I really can't be arsed to argue about lyrical style >Bicycle horns >Bicycle >horns >noise HAHAHAHA, what the fuck are you on? Like they count as noise. That is not what I'm talking about at all Are you also going to tell me that the sound of their voices are noise too?
Isaac Kelly
>it's a nice album to listen to when you don't wanna think about anything and just want a nice,calming and cheap experience of music You're clearly basing your whole interpretation of the album on this bias, so there's no point in arguing with you anymore.
Asher James
I wasn't arguing about that. You seem to have implied that Krautrock and Minimalism is somehow bad. That's what I was wondering about.
Jacob Hernandez
>It's audible at the beginning but as soon as they start singing, they push it so low in the mix you have shitty speakers(if you use headphones fuck yourself) >Just because it's there doesn't mean it's given any priority the whole song is based on that c >For a start there is no page on anything but noise music which doesn't mention anything like what you suggest learn to read, is there >Not really the same style at all and not really about sexual domination the lyrics are literally "You're pushin' too hard every night and day, You're pushin' too hard, you're pushin' too hard, On me." >HAHAHAHA, what the fuck are you on? Like they count as noise. That is not what I'm talking about at all what you're talking about them? show me what noise there is on VU and nico
I don't have any good response so ill just say some generic " you are biased shit" and dismiss him. if I have any bias towards them is a positive one. I grew up on them,my dad is A huge fan of them. I just started listening to other rock bands,I started listening tojazz and classical,and I just don't see them as nothing special.
That's not even comparable How fucking stubborn do you have to be to say that that is noise?
Lucas Howard
this youtube version is shit, if you want to listen to that drone listen to the cd, vinyl or spotify version
Gabriel Carter
explain to me why that's not noise and why in heroin it's noise
Owen Gray
because it has a well defined tone at any given instance.
Justin Sanchez
Do you even hear the differences? In that portion that I showed you, the noise is grating, high pitched screeching of the guitar. Feedback maybe Your 'example' of noise is so shit I can't even decide which part of the music you are trying to call noise
Bentley Cook
>casual 5/4 hard rock Which song is in 5/4? I've hear them all a hundred times and never noticed
What are those videos trying to prove? It seems to me like you just put heroin and chose another random 60s pop song that happened to be the who
>Yes, the beatles used a refined technique also used in musique concrète and the vu just did simple shit Like what? What did the beatles use because it definitely wasn't noise
Nathan Sanchez
>refined music concrete literally kill yourself if you think the Beatles ever did anything remotely close to music concrete. >VU did shit no. VU CHANGED music,changed it for ever.
Brandon Hernandez
the remasters are fucking shite by the way try to get an original vinyl, two different albums
Connor Cooper
>literally kill yourself if you think the Beatles ever did anything remotely close to music concrete. what's revolution 9? >no. VU CHANGED music,changed it for ever. they did nothing new, I proved to you, they are a shit band
Gavin Cooper
>released after peppers Nice fact, but it means absolutely nothing.
Andrew Bennett
>what is revolution 9 collage,and a pretty boring one. try Fugs-virgin forest, it's that but good.
Revolution 9 is pretty fucking close to musiq concrete and I wouldn't advise anyone to kill themselves if they thought that. Also I don't get this belief that something is better because it's more experimental or vice versa, seems counter intuitive as fuck.
Brandon Price
it's not the more experimental the better. But the beatles weren't experimental at all. all they did was the same as everyone else. Althought that doesn't make them trash,it makes them nothing special,and that's honestly how I see them, a band that was popular,but nothing special. the cause of this discussion is that the VU are bad,which they aren't.
Jacob Hill
>But the beatles weren't experimental at all they were, I proved to you >all they did was the same as everyone else most of the time they did it first, first than the VU at least >Althought that doesn't make them trash,it makes them nothing special they were more special than the VU >the cause of this discussion is that the VU are bad,which they aren't. that's taste, for me they were a bunch of hacks with a couple of good songs, for you they were the best band in the world just don't say that they did something first, like drone or noise in rock
Jonathan White
No you said that if anyone thinks that The Beatles ever made anything anywhere close to musique concrete they should kill themselves, which i found stupid.
I also don't think The Beatles really are like everyone else to be a hundred percent honest. I don't dislike VU at all either though, and Sunday Morning is an absolutely beautiful track.
But hey the thing is, my favourite Beatles track is "Long, Long, Long" so maybe i don't enjoy exactly the same things about them as others seem to do.
Zachary Powell
before 67 beatles were exactly the same band as one direction,they weren't the first at anything. you are an idiot. if you dont wanna listen to great music and prefer to listen manufactured crap,go ahead
Christopher Baker
>Sunday Morning I prefer Buddy Holly's Everyday, VU just plagiarized it >before 67 beatles were exactly the same band as one direction,they weren't the first at anything they played all instruments and wrote their songs and did the first deliberate use of feedback in a rock song, so I guess you are just wrong >you are an idiot. if you dont wanna listen to great music and prefer to listen manufactured crap,go ahead VU were literally manufactured by Andy Warhol to be a part of his art vision, they were a bunch of talentless junkies that couldn't even dream of getting to hte place the beatles reached with years of hard work
Ayden Jones
>VU were literally manufactured by Andy Warhol to be a part of his art vision, they were a bunch of talentless junkies that couldn't even dream of getting to hte place the beatles reached with years of hard work They weren't manufactured by andy warhol at all Andy, john cale and lou reed have all said that andy had no imput on their sound and was only involved in finance and booking gigs. John Cale was a well respected musician before, working in the experimental group 'theatre of eternal music' with other experimental artist la monte young, terry riley and angus maclise
You know nothing about what you are talking about you stupid fucking beatles fanboy
Xavier Fisher
Yeah, that's also a good song, I honestly do prefer the simpler melody and more melancholy feeling of sunday morning though. I definitely wouldn't say plagiarized, they are very different outside of the instrumental.
I'm also not the person saying anything negative about The Beatles, if you're confused.
Andrew White
>The Velvet Underground and Nico >worst than peppers i think your the one with bad taste user
think in the context of 1967 the only other person i can think of doing this at the time was frank zappa and the velvet underground. and zappa came AFTER sgt pepper and the velvet underground was only a few scant months behind them
Zachary Fisher
>They weren't manufactured by andy warhol at all Andy made them record with nico, made cover arts and promoted them to a higher profile, seems like manufacturing to me without warhol the VU would be nothing
Kayden Richardson
>think in the context of 1967 the only other person i can think of doing this at the time was frank zappa and the velvet underground. and zappa came AFTER sgt pepper and the velvet underground was only a few scant months behind them Intersystems
Ryan Perry
>Cares about image
David Roberts
it's the only thing to care when the music the band made was shit
Isaiah Wilson
Coming from someone who bums the beatles You are the most obnoxious pleb I've ever met. Fuck off and die
Wyatt Hughes
Fuck off and die is the best you can do? After all the wrong shit you said it must be.
Dylan Gutierrez
Stop making these threads katelynn
Joshua Perez
Holy shit you're delusional. They're completely different aside from being rock songs that have a celesta.
Anthony Wood
>both songs composed by d,g,a and c chords >They're completely different ok then
Owen Wood
A fuckton of songs have those chords. These two songs are more similiar than lot of songs using those chords though, but that doesn't mean much. They're good in different ways and there's no fucking reason i could find on earth as to why only one of them should be allowed to exist.
John Hall
the way they sing is also very similar >they're good in different ways and there's no fucking reason i could find on earth as to why only one of them should be allowed to exist. I agree
Jackson Lee
Good Morning i guess
Jackson Garcia
Pepper was literally 1967 on record, that time, that place, that world, on a piece of vinyl. The world had never seen anything like it before.
Aiden Barnes
NGL the streak from Concentration Moon --> Hot Poop is my all time favorite of any album.
Cameron Flores
>genuine experimentation Why is it that Zappa fans know nothing about experimentation?
Alexander Cook
This
Jose Torres
If anyone disagrees you're an ultra plëb revolver and the white album are the best Break time reminder:abbey road is 5/10
