gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
273806 Posts in 12343 Topics by 2127 Members - Latest Member: Pants Elk May 17, 2012, 06:31:47 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Greatest Year In Rock & Roll : 1967 :]  (Read 689 times)
Ron
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2889


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: February 05, 2012, 12:17:17 PM »

Well it's pretty obvious if you see what albums were released this year Smiley
There wasn't a better year for music then 1967 :]

Jimi Hendrix
Are You Experienced?

The Beatles
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

The Beach Boys
Smile/Smiley Smile

The Beatles
Magical Mystery Tour

The Who
The Who Sell Out

The Doors
The Doors

Pink Floyd
The Piper at the Gates of Dawn

The Kinks
Something Else by The Kinks

The Velvet Underground
The Velvet Underground & Nico

The Rolling Stones
Their Satanic Majesties Request

Cream
Disraeli Gears

Love
Forever Changes


Are we just outright dismissing R&B/Soul music?

R&B/Soul wasn't album-orientated until a little while later - 'Hot Buttered Soul' and 'What's Going On' being pioneering. The first couple of Sly and The Family Stone albums aren't strong either - 'Stand' being the first coherant one.


You must have never heard of Mr. James Brown.  Hot Buttered Soul and What's Going On were certainly great albums, but the black community was well aware of albums full of themed music way before then.  There's nothing pioneering about What's going on other than how it crossed over into the White Pop mainstream.  James Brown and the Famous Flames were selling albums in the 50's that weren't driven by singles.  I'm not suggesting they're on the level of Hot Buttered Soul or What's Going On, but the whole discussion we're having is about "best year in music".  James Brown was making great songs and great music back in the 50's.  Ignoring R&B outright before 1971 because we've never heard the albums the singles were released on is just pedantic.  R&B was nearly as important as Rock (and certainly part of it's inception) well into the 70's. 
Logged
hypehat
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4009



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: February 05, 2012, 01:45:58 PM »

Right on - ignoring R&B for not making 'album' albums would be like dismissing pop music for the same. Which you don't seem to be doing.
Logged

It's official! Most of us would rather be hit in the head with a gun than share a bath with Bruce.
I'd sign a petition for Rocky Pamplin to get kicked in the nuts.
What is this "life" thing you speak of ?
Luther
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5051


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: February 05, 2012, 02:02:26 PM »

Giving albums priority over singles doesn't make sense, anyway, regardless of when this genre or that moved into and out of albums as the dominant format. It doesn't mean anything about the quality of music. You could just as easily say music got better in 198x (I have no idea what year) because people started making 74-minute (or however much it was) albums because that's how much space a CD could fit.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius
I. Spaceman
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


Revolution Now


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: February 05, 2012, 05:58:08 PM »

Giving albums priority over singles doesn't make sense, anyway, regardless of when this genre or that moved into and out of albums as the dominant format. It doesn't mean anything about the quality of music. You could just as easily say music got better in 198x (I have no idea what year) because people started making 74-minute (or however much it was) albums because that's how much space a CD could fit.

That's right, Captain.
Logged

CENSORED DUE TO ADMINISTRATIVE HYPOCRISY
gfx
Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!