Smiley Smile = Party! Part II

[SMiLE Brian]

Smiley's droning organ on an original LP copy is amazing in itself.

[Lee Marshall]

Mujan...I agree with you that Sgt. Peppers is over-rated...severely over-rated and really?...It hasn't stood up to the test of time like Rubber Soul or Abbey Road have.  The thing is though...it gets and deserves 'cred' for being a 'first' and for it opening up some doors and new directions.  They 'scooped' Brian.  Not THEIR fault.

In short...Sgt. Peppers is a very good album but I no longer consider it to be a great one.

TIME.  It can be your friend.  It can also be your enemy.

[guitarfool2002]

Ugh. Sgt Pepper is NOT the benchmark. The United States of America, We're Only In It For the Money, Forever Changes, In the Court of the Crimson King, Piper at the Gates of Dawn, Surrealistic Pillow, Cheap Thrills, Axis: Bold as Love, Strange Days...

I could go on. Those are all better benchmarks of the age, better overall albums and far more psychedelic and progressive than Pepper and that's just off the top of my head. Even Revolver is a better Beatles/psychedelic album than Pepper. Pepper is only the benchmark by posers who dont know anything about music and blindly place the Beatles as the unquestioned gods of pop music for the sole reason that they're the Beatles and everyone tells us they are. /rant.

What you're missing entirely is how Sgt. Pepper was received on its release in 1967, and how influential it was in not only music but also popular culture in general. That is not an overstatement - Do some research into what the Beatles' peers thought of Pepper in 1967 and how it changed the game. Again, not an overstatement. The big flaw in such an analysis as above is also labeling this and other albums "psychedelic", by doing that with the other releases you're effectively doing the same thing to them as you're railing against those who do it with Pepper.

Evidence of this? Find some listeners who aren't as familiar with a few of these and play them the other albums mentioned, then ask if they sound "psychedelic". Or better yet, ask those new listeners to define what psychedelic music sounds like, or should sound like relative to 1967 to fit that label. Then let the fun begin.

See, the problem with these kinds of rants and music criticism and journalism in general in the internet/blog/social media age is a level of naivete mixed with ignorance mixed with selfishness where the blame falls almost entirely on frame of reference. I've read critics, or self-appointed "critics", write and pontificate with a frame of reference that suggests alternative, indie, punk, underground, and their notion of "important" bands started decades later than it actually did. But try to tell that to one of these nouveau rock critics...the perspective and frame of reference is totally warped by a general inability to accept a simple truth:

Some things are exactly what they were. No amount of critical "re-evaluation" can change certain things, because they are what they were. In the case of Sgt. Pepper, for one, it really was that big and that influential of an event when it was released. Do we blame media hype and ballyhoo in subsequent years for how it was perceived in 1967 and immediately after? I'd hope not.

It's perfectly fine and valid to re-evaluate a work of art, it's more than fine and welcome for anyone with a critical bent to suggest their own feelings and thoughts about that work in a critical discussion, but anyone who wishes to be taken seriously as a critic, as a journalistic voice in any way, or even as an authoritative voice in a historical analysis should take a breath before putting pen to paper and consider a few things.

Technique. The bigger posers are those who think their opinions are and should be taken as absolute truth if not fact. I don't like Sgt Pepper? I'll translate that opinion into telling the history as a concrete fact that the album was overhyped from Day One and actually wasn't as good as other, less known titles which didn't sell as well. I don't like something? I'll convince others who like it how much it sucks! Yeah, that works every time. Amateur hour.

Perspective. What was the scene, what was the sense of those experiencing something before, during, and after the event itself? In this case, what was the scene and what were fans, musicians, and the Average Joe thinking in the months before and after Sgt Pepper was "new"? That's relatively easy to suss out.

But to put a 2015 or even a 2002 or whatever other year's mentality and perspective into retroactively deciding an album's relative worth ignores the influence and impact the album had when it was new and breaking down doors. Read any number of musicians and artists from that era, and their thoughts on Pepper.

So "Forever Changes" may be a terrific album, it may be 1000 times better than Pepper, it may be the most important album released in 1967...as opinion that's fine, and it's a personal favorite of mine too, but to elevate it or any of the other titles often cited (when looking to diminish the Sacred Cow Sgt Pepper) into the same sphere of influence as Sgt. Pepper in 1967 is simply more personal opinion than fact. Basically, like it or not, that Pepper album was one of the landmark releases of its era. No matter what the media or overzealous fans have done to it since, the original influence that led to all of the hype was fact.

Ever go to a restaurant and have a meal which, when finished, you sit at the table thinking or even saying "that was the best meal I've ever had"? I'll bet there have been several if not many more cases of eating a meal and declaring it "the best I've ever had" through the years. Might try a new restaurant, might get a total surprise from an old stand-by restaurant, may even travel to another country and try totally new food..."That's the best I've ever had"...

Now, does saying that more than one time in one's life make the *original* best meal any less good than it was at that time in that place and with that frame of reference? In 1967 Sgt Pepper was pretty close to if not exactly as advertised in regards to influence and being a game-changer in the pop music business.

[rab2591]

Perfectly put, Guitarfool.

[Niko]

Dont take mujan too seriously  think of the good times talking about Smile, and not the bad times talking about any other music

[TMinthePM]

I've sometimes thought Revolver superior to Pepper, but, playing the two back to back daily for a couple of weeks recently had to admit Pepper ups the ante, especially with the associated singles added to the play list - Paperback Writer/Rain, Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane. In fact, I never listen to either without the singles added. Hell, I don't ever listen to anything by the Beach Boys or Beatles in their original released configurations. 

[Mike's Beard]

Ugh. Sgt Pepper is NOT the benchmark. The United States of America, We're Only In It For the Money, Forever Changes, In the Court of the Crimson King, Piper at the Gates of Dawn, Surrealistic Pillow, Cheap Thrills, Axis: Bold as Love, Strange Days...

I could go on. Those are all better benchmarks of the age, better overall albums and far more psychedelic and progressive than Pepper and that's just off the top of my head. Even Revolver is a better Beatles/psychedelic album than Pepper. Pepper is only the benchmark by posers who dont know anything about music and blindly place the Beatles as the unquestioned gods of pop music for the sole reason that they're the Beatles and everyone tells us they are. /rant.

Well put. Pepper is the benchmark for hype over substance.

[TMinthePM]

Actually, as I recall, the world paused in June 1967 to listen to this remarkable new release by the Beatles. No hype was necessary, it so perfectly captured the Zeitgeist of the Age.

[Lee Marshall]

My friends and I did the exact same thing in June '66 that we did one year later.  We went to the closest record store and picked up Pet Sounds///Sgt Peppers.  [my buddy Jeff bought the Duophonic Pet Sounds...I just got the mono version]///[one year later it was ALL about stereo]

We went home and played those albums about 3 times...straight through...and discussed their various, plentiful and obvious merits.  Both jaw-droppingly great.  But Pet Sounds, and Rubber Soul...and Abbey Road have a timeless quality to them.  Only production values date them.  Sgt Peppers by virtue of poking into different far-reaching corners and also in not fully realizing its 'theme' now sounds dated content - wise.  Still important.  Still impressive.  Stil chalk-full of great tunes but dated nonetheless.

[TMinthePM]

Forgive me if I come across as being pedantic, but you could not have bought a copy of Pepper in June '66.

As for Pet Sounds - that was a challenge for 15-16 year old ears. The four singles sold the record, and it took repeated listenings as it revealed itself. In fact, such was my experience with all Beach Boys releases in the years following, Pet Sounds thru In Concert. So overwhelming was the effect of the Fun in the Sun classics that I (we) kept waiting for a return to form. But that "form" was essentially exhausted and the new material required an indulgent ear an a bit of time to sink in. I can recall a Christmas party in '66 where we played Pet Sounds alternately with The Fugs, and played spin-the-bottle to Hermans Hermits Greatest Hits as well as Between the Buttons - never suspecting the meaning of that last one. 

[Micha]

Forgive me if I come across as being pedantic, but you could not have bought a copy of Pepper in June '66.

I had to read twice to get what Add Some meant: He meant that in June 1966 he and his friend bought Pet Sounds together and one year later they bought Sgt. Pepper together.

Personally, I enjoy Revolver way more than Sgt. Pepper, and can't understand why Abbey Road is thought to be a great album. If I made a best of Beatles collection, nothing from Abbey Road would be on it.

I have a friend who absolutely loves Pepper. A few years ago we rode in a car together and I had SMiLE playing. Knowing my fandom she asked after a while: "Is THAT the Beach Boys?" Yes. "That's depressing music." And that was when "Holidays" was played which I feel is pretty upbeat. Since then I'm convinced that SMiLE never had the potential to become a phenomenon that Pepper was.

[TMinthePM]

Abbey Road was patched together. Maxwell, anyone? And Medley is a bore. Otherwise some good tunes. The White Album is light years beyond that. And now that I think of it, The White Album bears a considerable resemblance to Smiley Smile, problem with Smiley being its pieces are scattered across a couple of albums, singles and flipsides, whereas the White Album at least presents it's Doll's House in a package...err...with a couple of singles, flipsides and studio rejects (What's the New Mary Jane) also scattered about.

Two definitely inward looking albums, yeah, I never before made the connection.

[guitarfool2002]

I've sometimes thought Revolver superior to Pepper, but, playing the two back to back daily for a couple of weeks recently had to admit Pepper ups the ante, especially with the associated singles added to the play list - Paperback Writer/Rain, Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane. In fact, I never listen to either without the singles added. Hell, I don't ever listen to anything by the Beach Boys or Beatles in their original released configurations. 

I know I'm repeating what's been written many times, but it's important to note that the Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane single was originally part of the group of songs the band started to work on in the studio when they regrouped after a hiatus that lasted from August 1966 to November 24, '66 when they regrouped and John played them Strawberry Fields. It was Strawberry Fields, then When I'm 64, then Penny Lane which took them into January '67...interrupted only by the Christmas recordings, and in Jan. '67 the famous/infamous/mostly unheard "Carnival Of Light". Mid-January it was "A Day In The Life" that was started.

So there really was no concept - and the band members and staff like Martin and Emerick acknowledged this - as they worked up these songs in late '66 and Jan. '67, it was just the next project they were recording. It wasn't Sgt. Pepper until McCartney showed up with the title track on Feb 1, '67.

It's obscure to think of it this way today, but the notion that the Beatles could separate themselves from being the Beatles and stage a fictional revue as the "Lonely Hearts Club Band" seemed to be a very liberating notion, and one which led to a creative spark that saw the next 6 weeks (Feb into March 67) produce the bulk of the album and some legendary overdub sessions. Remember in that "hiatus" when they all did their own thing in Fall '66 after the final live show, there were plenty of rumors circulating that the band was finished, that they had split up, etc. Getting back together in late November '66 was when they also decided as a group to take a giant leap forward, and have no boundaries on what they could do on their recordings. Revolver was liberating, it was groundbreaking, but at the same time they still felt constrained because they had upcoming tour obligations to make...which meant they still were limited in how much time the project could take.

With this new project, and Strawberry Fields in particular, the "Revolver" crew was in place, but they had no constraints and were free to experiment, even moreso than Revolver.

That's one of the big differences to note, which non-musicians may not immediately notice even after dozens of listening sessions with Pepper and the Strawberry/Penny single: They could spend hours getting their parts just right. McCartney in particular went above and beyond what he had ever done on bass. He would often add bass near the end of the tracking process, so he could interact with the melody, and other instrumental parts. He would spend hours, often late nights, and often with only Emerick and a tape op perfecting the most minute details of his bass parts. If you hear any of the 4-track takes, you'll hear how these parts were done often phrase by phrase to get the exact touch and tone he wanted on the song.

That is not fan-boy exaggeration. They - especially Paul - had the time to perfect the parts which previously they may have had to settle for a few out of tune bass notes, an obvious tape splice to fix a mistake, etc...due to time constraints. They had none - the freedom to get it just right was available. John was up to the task with at least 3 of his more complete and visual songs, added of course to Strawberry Fields which was and is a masterpiece. Paul took a lot of cues from Pet Sounds and created his English version of "Wouldn't It Be Nice" with Penny Lane, stacking multiple keyboards, adding a shuffle beat, and more orchestral-type horns like Cor Anglais and piccolo trumpet, versus Brian's brass and saxophone-heavy "American" arrangements...while telling Emerick how much of a "clean American sound" he wanted for this new music. Those bass lines - Paul was a creative player going back to 1964 but on Pepper he took that extra time to compose bass lines - in part inspired by Beach Boys records and James Jamerson on Motown.

I've always had Revolver as my perennial go-to Beatles album, since I was probably 12 or so, but the way Sgt. Pepper has so many layers and so many little details which went into its creation as a purely "studio" album makes it a great listen every time. When you think you've burned out on it, you can zero in on the Indian instruments from Within You Without You, or the bass line on Lovely Rita, or the non-specific instrumental hazy swirl of noises and sounds that start floating throughout "Lucy", or check out Paul's El Pico amp tone on one track or another, some of the more intricate guitar interplay buried in certain mixes...and Ringo's trademark drumming throughout the album...it is a pretty fucking great album that shows a band using what they had as a 4-piece rock combo to go above and beyond the limitations of that setup and explore outside the comfort zone, or even what was possible from a four-piece rock band in a recording studio with four tracks to work with.

They used those technological limitations to their advantage, they capitalized on the strengths of the "team" around them, and focused on what the core band could do versus what they could not. That's one reason I love the album.

I don't get the overhype bit. I never did, and never will. Sour grapes, or some pseudo-critics' way of championing the underdogs by bashing the more popular, who knows. I know basically where it's coming from, I know why it's become more prevalent, but what this album did in 1967 was massive, and it was a massive influence immediately upon its release. That can never be overstated.

[guitarfool2002]

Getting back to the OT, the Party-Smiley lineage, I think Party was in fact a true "concept" album where the intent was there from the first notes recorded. It was to create the atmosphere of an informal, pull out the guitars at the party type of vibe. No pretenses, no delusions of grandeur, just an attempt to capture what was something of a hobby at the time. Some records captured this too, deliberately trying to sound like a frat party or other scene. "Double Shot Of My Baby's Love" by the Swingin' Medallions was one of a handful of "party" type records where it sounded like they stuck up a mic at a frat house and rolled tape. "Louie Louie", The Kingsmen...no crowd noise, no clinking glasses or dropped beer cans but damn you could almost smell the stale beer and cigarette butts on the floor of that record. Along with the flasks of gin and Windsor Canadian some of the band members swiped from Dad's liquor cabinet.

That live atmosphere, like you were hearing a party underway, totally informal, correcting mistakes be damned, it was like audio verite. But the BB's "Party!", whether it was done to get Capitol their next release under pressure or if it were simply what Brian as the producer wanted to capture, it had no set rules going into the deal. You can hear it on the session tapes, in some cases they're still finding songs to play, it would seem. Between the jokes about LSD, Sonny Bono, and Hal Blaine missing a flight, they're basically hanging out and recording informally. Which was the whole point of this "concept" going in.

What turned out to be a stroke of near-genius was how it may have humanized the band in a way, as you heard these pop stars doing stuff you and your friends were doing in garages, on the beach, in parents' basements, at whatever party was happening last weekend, whatever. And they were also deconstructing and poking fun at their own number one hit songs...all of this, the "concept" if you will, so popular with the fans that in 1966 the band specifically added what we'd later call an "unplugged" set into their live shows. Dennis singing "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away" just as he did on the album...a brilliant touch. Barbara Ann, live, where the crowd could sing along just as all those "guests" had done on the album's party - the fans were doing exactly what was on the record, and for decades they still continued that singalong, clapalong vibe as that song was often the closer, the crowd-pleaser. Just like the album.

Can Smiley Smile lay claim to any of that "vibe"? The actual work done on the album isn't obvious on a lot of the tracks which sound like informal recordings. But take Jim Lockert and Stephen Desper's comments through the years on the techie side of the album's creation...despite the ol' Dualux radio board and all the other rented gear. It's deceptively simple in sound, but not its creation.

Take away the two previous singles on that album, how much actual meat is left on the bone, song-wise? Stripped down, leftover Smile...a truly sublime and beautiful ode to Hawaii, a truly unique and outlandish instrumental that suggests walking through a deep winter snow with a plodding organ pedal bass line then hearing birds singing as spring rolls around (who does THAT???), some vari-speed ELTRO effects which supercharge a pretty pedestrian Smile re-write, an ill-conceived Brian And Mike duo-solo joint with a killer chorus hook but terribly off-kilter and non-grooving discordant verses...it's a mixed bag overall. To me the two singles sound like they came from Jupiter while the album was created on Pluto.

Don't get me wrong, I love the album and play it for anyone with open ears (especially Little Pad which is truly magnificent, one of the best wordless melodies in all of pop music), but I don't hear much of a concept, a unifying thread to connect the tunes, or even much of a cohesive "whole" to relate track to track. Party has that, and had that concept going into the project. Pet Sounds had a unifying theme after the fact, Smile had a notion of the Teenage Symphony To God which morphed into several variations and sidetracks...but Smiley Smile apart from the recorded sound of the actual fully-developed songs really doesn't connect to anything as previous albums had done and subsequent albums like Friends would do.

[TMinthePM]

Excellent!

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

I can expand on my opinion on Pepper more if you'd like, but I have mixed feelings on if I should since its irrelevant to the thread and I didn't mean for my rant to cause this big tangent.

In any case, I'm just checking this board on my phone before bed so I don't have time to write anywhere near the essay you have, guitarfool, but I will say a few things. One, I think we judge albums differently. I go by what sounds best to me, the percentage of good tracks to mediocre/filler ones, cohesiveness at least in terms of "musical flow" but preferably some kind of thematic statement as well, and just straight up creativity and innovation. You seem to judge based on how influential an album was and how popular. You look at what Pepper meant to people at the time and what a big deal it was. I'm looking at it now, removed from that initial shock value and judging it by its own merits compared to its peers. I must propose as well that I don't think it would have had anywhere near the same impact or lasting reverence it did had any other band released it. I honestly think it's pretty tame and watered down compared to most other great late 60s albums, but because it was The Beatles it reached a wider audience it made psychedelia mainstream. I still think just about every other band, and the Beatles themselves with Revolver, captured psychedelia better. I think there's some pretty substandard songs on Pepper as well as lame subject matter. Writing about a child's drawing and old poster isn't particularly deep or creative.

I respect you and your opinion, but please don't write *mine* off as sour grapes.

rab, funny you should bring up Citizen Kane. I think the comparison is very astute. Although I still love Kane and am a big Welles fan, I think that's another overrated "it's the best because everyone says it is" work of art.

Woodstock, glad we can agree on SMiLE at least. I'd hope just because we disagree on other stuff you won't dismiss me completely though.

[TMinthePM]

No no! It's cool! The thread veered onto another track, but so what? We can always take it back, so say your say! It's interesting.

[Please delete my account]

Writing about a child's drawing

... the drawing was just a starting point. Julian would have been some prodigy if his drawing contained everything in LitSwD.

[TMinthePM]

I feel the same way about Citizen Kane.

[Fire Wind]

Not sure that many people still think of Pepper as the be-all and end-all of the Beatles these days, at least in the UK.  Some revisionism happened, I think, around the late 90s or early 2000s.  It's just the benefit of hindsight, and folk recognising the better music.  It seemed to me, around that time, that Revolver started getting more regard in its place, which is fine by me.  Pepper presented a liberating concept, but it wasn't much realised in the contents of the album and the music itself was mostly just Revolver part II.

If it got so much hype in its day because of the concept, it's only natural for it be later called out on it, given it was a bit of a con.

[SMiLE Brian]

Guitar fool, when is your magnum opus book coming out?

[Mike's Beard]

Guitar fool, when is your magnum opus book coming out?

He writes one with every post.

Not sure that many people still think of Pepper as the be-all and end-all of the Beatles these days, at least in the UK.  Some revisionism happened, I think, around the late 90s or early 2000s.  It's just the benefit of hindsight, and folk recognising the better music.  It seemed to me, around that time, that Revolver started getting more regard in its place, which is fine by me.  Pepper presented a liberating concept, but it wasn't much realised in the contents of the album and the music itself was mostly just Revolver part II.

If it got so much hype in its day because of the concept, it's only natural for it be later called out on it, given it was a bit of a con.

From what I recall, the album was intially going to be based on their growing up in Liverpool, which was dumped when Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane was cribbed for a standalone single. Then Paul brought in the concept of of the Sgt Pepper band peforming a variety type show. They got as far as the title track & Reprise and The Benefit of Mr Kite before in the words of Ringo they said "Sod it, let's just do tracks". So no concept, bar the artwork and costumes.

Two MUCH better albums from '67 Mujan forgot about were Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones Ltd. and The Nortorious Byrd Bros - neither exactly underdog groups, esp The Monkees who were selling a considerable amount more records than The Beatles at that point.

[guitarfool2002]

Just a few thoughts on the Pepper material.

Perspective is a major player in these discussions. I come from a musical/musician mindset, playing, recording, arranging, songwriting, etc. At some point I realized I immediately zeroed in on the music and the groove over lyrics. That's my viewpoint, what some would call my bias, but that's just how I'm wired to hear music. Lyrics and their deeper meanings are like the decorations and icing on the three-layer cake of a record. I listened to certain songs - Steely Dan comes to mind - dozens upon dozens of times before knowing or caring exactly what they were singing about. When I did learn those things, like "Rikki" was about sadomasochism, "Kid Charlemagne" was Owsley and his LSD, "Peg" was about the low-budget seedy porn industry in LA, etc etc etc...it added a lot of knowledge and background and additional layers of understanding but none of that meant sh*t compared to the way the records sounded. If they didn't sound as they did, if there wasn't that groove and all associated musical elements, I wouldn't have listened again.

My bias, laid out for all to see.    The famous LA story about Mike Nesmith putting a fist through the wall of a swank hotel after Donny Kirshner and Herb Moelis gave him a quarter-million dollar royalty share check and told him to play ball...Mike had also said to Kirshner "We could sing Happy Birthday with a beat and it would sell a million copies", and the guy was right on the money. That's, again, what I gravitate toward on any song I hear - How does it *sound*. If they're singing about Lego blocks or Manifest Destiny, that's secondary to what I feel in that first ten seconds or so of hearing the groove. Simple as that.

So I read some of the comments here and other places about Pepper vs. Revolver, some of the statements, etc. I have no problem with sharing and debating opinions. But let me say honestly, I think some of those opinions might change or at least be reconsidered if the wider-angle lens of perspective is put onto the camera which has been capturing the landscapes that may have formed those opinions.

I'm not out to hammer any ideas or thoughts, or say "you MUST think this, your opinion is WRONG!" (enough of that goes on already, you know?)...but at the same time consider where the opinions come from and where a wider lens could capture more perspective.

Sgt Pepper, regarding in Mujan's terms judging and album "straight up creativity and innovation". I'm not out to call out anyone or anything, but rather to offer ideas to consider, and consider a re-think of some previously held thoughts.

From a recording, arranging, production, engineering angle: Mujan, I don't know what you've done in recording, or music, or whatever else is the case, but I can state as fact that there are innovations as well as straight up creativity - specifically very creative technological solutions to break though the limitations of both 4-track recording and the limitations of EMI/Abbey Road in 1966/67 - which mark the "Pepper era", I say that to include Strawberry/Penny.

Creative ways to get new sounds, creative ways to "fix" certain sonic and tech issues, creative and innovative techniques which - let me stress this point in bold and return to it later with Revolver - are now commonplace and available on the cheapest DAW recording platform on a store-bought Mac but which were new and had not been done in 1966-67.

Innovation, creativity? Take the most low-end, stock, consumer-grade digital recording program, Garage Band or even your computer's audio recording app...and you have infinitely more power and tools available to you then the Beatles, Emerick, Martin, et al had when recording Revolver and Pepper in 66-67.

Think about that for a minute. On your iPhone/iPad, with a 30 dollar interface, you have more access and more flexibility in recording and editing audio than they did to make Pepper, Revolver, Pet Sounds, or any other album made in that and subsequent eras.

With all that power, with all of that flexibility and control literally at your fingertips, is anyone able to capture the sounds and the textures of those albums in 2015? All that power, yet who can match it?

Remember, these sounds we all take for granted, all of the "weird sh*t" that has been a part of some amazingly creative records through the years in all styles...someone had to break down the doors and make it palatable. Make it marketable. Make this "weird sh*t" gradually acceptable in the mainstream, in the world of pop music.

The Beatles didn't invent it (I'm not that naive or that blinded by fan devotion to suggest that), but they sure as hell kicked down a lot of doors and held those doors open so others could follow them in and actually make a mainstream buck or two doing it...The best and most innovative record in the world wouldn't mean jack if no one heard it.

Pepper was innovative and creative as hell. Still is. I'm just suggesting instead of getting hung up on circus posters and lyrical content, widen that focus a bit, put on a wide-angle lens, and look at what others see and have been seeing (and hearing) since 1967.



After all of that...  ....Revolver. I have a simple thought to consider on why Revolver's perception and cache has grown and may have even eclipsed Pepper especially in the last 20 years or so. I admit and acknowledge it has.

Consider again my musician bias. Revolver has many of the "pet sounds" (intentional pun) that rock/underground/alternative/indie bands love and use on their own records. From the way drums are close mic'ed (snare sounds especially), to the way guitars are mixed and even played within a song, right down to McCartney's looping/loping bass riffs like Taxman pushed far up in the mix...combined with the pumping compressed drums...

Revolver is accessible and reachable as a sonic palette for so many artists and bands, especially when playing live. You can have a rock band in 1993 up to 2015 taking the stage and doing their versions of borrowing the Revolver sound and using it. I hear Revolver *all over the place* when I hear rock bands play, live and on record.

The drum sounds especially, but as much in the overall grooves and textures. That makes Revolver naturally more accessible, more possible to emulate and borrow from, and therefore more influential to the 90's-present era of rock musicians who would draw influence from something they could reach sonically and musically versus the more unusual sounds and textures of Pepper.

Ever wonder why you don't hear too many bands or artists trying to get a "Good Vibrations" sound on their own records? Some records are so unique, they're simply unattainable. So you get more "tribute" or emulations of Beach Boys and Brian records that lean either toward Today/Summer Days sounds or the late 60's Capitol sounds like Do It Again or even Wild Honey/Friends. Those you can come close to and borrow from, like Revolver's amazing sounds.

Because someone always has to write the rules and be the first so others can then bend and break them to suit.

[guitarfool2002]

Guitar fool, when is your magnum opus book coming out?

He writes one with every post.

You bet your sweet bippy I do.

[SMiLE Brian]

Guitar fool, when is your magnum opus book coming out?

He writes one with every post.

You bet your sweet bippy I do.

But seriously, I want a book from guitarfool. His posts are a highlight of the board.