What album do you think Pitchfork.com will vote #1 when it eventually makes a 100 best albums of the 60's list?

  • user warning: Table './listology/profile_values' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT f.name, f.type, v.value FROM profile_fields f INNER JOIN profile_values v ON f.fid = v.fid WHERE uid = 102334 in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/listology.com/modules/profile/profile.module on line 229.
  • user warning: Table './listology/profile_values' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT f.name, f.type, v.value FROM profile_fields f INNER JOIN profile_values v ON f.fid = v.fid WHERE uid = 0 in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/listology.com/modules/profile/profile.module on line 229.
Tags: 
Author Comments: 

REMEMBER it's not your personal choice here, it's what do you think "PITCHFORK.COM" would choose, based on what you feel their critical consensous would most favor out of all the great albums of the 60's. I did my best to include all the albums I felt had at least a decent shot at being Pitchfork's #1. If you think of one that is obvious which I've forgotten (especially in the jazz genre as Pitchfork really loves those), then please let me know and I'll consider including it ONLY if it is a fairly obvious or a very obvious choice. Otherwise it belongs in "SOME OTHER ALBUM NONE OF US EXPECTED".

Yeah, would hope that they select VU & Nico, no other album like it at the time, very underrated when released, and would have a huge impact on music almost a decade later, notably with Punk. Personally, I would love to see "We're Only In It For The Money" by the Mothers as #1, but I don't see that happening :P.

Not much support for VU & Nico? dont get it. Sgt peppers is out simply for being rolling stones greatest album of all time.

It is wierd. I think VU & Nico is the clear frontrunner for that list should it get created someday.

Pitchfork released another list this morning: Top 200 Greatest Songs of the 60s:

"People always ask: 'When is Pitchfork gonna run a list of the top albums of the 1960s?' The answer today? Probably never. Not that we didn't consider it. It's just that when we sat down to map it all out, we found it would be more rewarding to approach the decade through its songs instead. After all, it was by and large a single-oriented era-- the long-player didn't really take over as a creative medium until the 60s had nearly come to an end. And besides, Revolver's ego is out of hand as it is."

So who knows..... VU & Nico still gets my vote. It's probably the most influential album of the 60's.

They hand the title to Revolver without even taking the poll.

I could hardly imagine a worse cop-out than that

I agree.

Look Rubber Soul was the album that influenced Pet Sounds and Revlover influenced Gerry Garcia, Syd Barrett,Robbi Krieger and the Jefferson Airplane and JimI Hendrix enough said. Sgt Peppers is not the best album by the Beatles but it much more influential than the Velvet Undergroud like it or not.
sal66

"The influence of the Beatles cannot be considered musical. Music, especially in those days, was something else: experimental, instrumental, improvised, political. The Beatles played pop ditties. Rock musicians of the time played everything but pop ditties, because rock was conceived as an alternative to ditties. FM radio was created to play rock music, not pop ditties. Music magazines were born to review rock music, not pop songs. Evidently, to the kids (mostly girls) who listened to the Beatles, rock music had nothing to say that they were willing to listen to.

They were influential, yes, but on the customs - in the strictest sense of the word. Their influence, for better or for worse, on the great phenomena of the 60s doesn't amount to much. Unlike Bob Dylan, they didn't stir social revolts; unlike the Jefferson Airplane and the Grateful Dead they didn't foster the hippie movement; unlike Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix they didn't further the myth of LSD; unlike Jagger and Zappa they had no impact on the sexual revolution. Indeed the Beatles were icons of the customs that embodied the opposite: the desire to contain all that was happening. In their songs there is no Vietnam, there is no politics, there are no kids rioting in the streets, there is no sexual promiscuity, there are no drugs, there is no violence. In the world of the Beatles the social order of the 40s and the 50s still reigns. At best they were influential on the secret dreams of young girls, and on the haircuts of young nerdy boys."

--Piero Scaruffi

There's a similar discussion happening in one of lukeprog's threads.

This could get quite heated!

I'm sorry the Velvet Underegroud are absoutlely unlistenable in songs like European Son and a few others. Compare that to the Beatles and the great melodies and harmonies of Rubber Soul and Revolver. The guitar work on the Velvet Undergroud debut album sounds like it was not even tuned correctly and the guitar work on Revolver is far superior to the debut album of the Velvet Underground what are you guys talking about.

I think your mistake is in expecting the Velvet Underground to make songs that sound like Beatles songs

What I'm annoyed at and I study music in school is the Beatles made so many influential albums compared to The Velvet Underground who made one classic album. We know the Beatles did not invent psychedlic music but with Revolver it popularized it because it was the first psychedilc album that went number one in America. With songs like Rain and Tomorrow Never Knows they practically reivented psychedlic music with the use of backward tapes, Indian drones and mellotron those techniques were very new to rock music on a whole even though they were of course were used on other genres. They actually got close to psychedelic music on Rubber Soul.

The velvet underground released between 0 and 5 classic albums, depending on who you ask.

How much of this stuff did they teach you in class? What's your course syllabus like?

The influence of the velvet underground wasn't really felt until long after the 60s were over and people finally started to pay attention to them.

I'm glad we agree on something that was exactly my point The Beatles work had an sudden impact when they released their albums the people you like either had no influence or their influence was later. I'm a huge Led Zeppelin fan but I acknowledge The Beatles influence and even John Cale said on Mojo magazine that he admired the Beatles Norwegian Wood and it inspired him as a musician and I book I read about the Velvet's even they were inspired about their songwriting abilties.

"the people you like either had no influence or their influence was later."

that's often the case. great albums that are commercial failures upon release and then rediscovered years or decades later. blame the audience not the band

"Rather than an album of psychedelic music (compared to which it actually sounds retro), Sgt. Pepper was the Beatles' answer to the sophistication of Pet Sounds, the masterpiece by their rivals, the Beach Boys, released a year and three months before. The Beatles had always been obsessed by the Beach Boys. They had copied their multi-part harmonies, their melodic style and their carefree attitude. Through their entire career, from 1963 to 1968, the Beatles actually followed the Beach Boys within a year or two, including the formation of Apple Records, which came almost exactly one year after the birth of Brother Records. Pet Sounds had caused an uproar because it delivered the simple melodies of surf music through the artistic sophistication of the studio. So, following the example of Pet Sounds, the Beatles recorded, from February to May 1967, Sgt. Pepper, disregarding two important factors: first that Pet Sounds had been arranged, mixed and produced by Brian Wilson and not by an external producer like George Martin, and second that, as always, they were late. They began assembling Sgt. Pepper a year after Pet Sounds had hit the charts, and after dozens of records had already been influenced by it.

Legend has it that it took 700 hours of studio recording to finish the album. One can only imagine what many other less fortunate bands could have accomplished in a recording studio with 700 hours at their disposal. Although Sgt. Pepper was assembled with the intent to create a revolutionary work of art, if one dares take away the hundreds of hours spent refining the product, not much remains that cannot be heard on Revolver: Oriental touches here and there, some psychedelic extravaganzas, a couple of arrangements in classical style. Were one to skim off a few layers of studio production, only pop melodies would remain, melodies not much different from those that had climbed the charts ten years before. Yet it was the first Beatles album to be released in long playing version all over the world. None of its songs were released as singles.

The truth is that although it was declared an "experimental" work, even Sgt. Pepper managed to remain a pop album. The Beatles of 1967 were still producing three-minute ditties, while Red Crayolas and Pink Floyd, to name two psychedelic bands of the era, were playing long free form suites - at times cacophonous, often strictly instrumental - that bordered on avant garde. In 1967, the band that had never recorded a song that hadn't been built around a refrain began to feel outdated. They tried to keep up, but they never pushed themselves beyond the jingles, most likely because they couldn't, just as Marilyn Monroe could not have recited Shakespeare.

Sgt. Pepper is the album of a band that sensed change in the making, and was adapting its style to the taste of the hippies. It came in last (in June), after Velvet Underground & Nico (January), The Doors (also January), the Byrds' Younger Than Yesterday (february), and the Jefferson Airplane's Surrealistic Pillow (February) to signal the end of an era, after others had forever changed the history of rock music. (Several technical "innovations" on Sgt Pepper were copied from Younger Than Yesterday, whose tapes the Beatles had heard from David Crosby at the end of 1966). The uproar generated by Sgt. Pepper transferred those innovations from the American underground to the living rooms and the supermarkets of half the world."

--Piero Scaruffi, music historian

"One would be hard pressed to name a rock album whose influence has been as broad and pervasive as The Velvet Underground and Nico. While it reportedly took over a decade for the album's sales to crack six figures, glam, punk, new wave, goth, noise, and nearly every other left-of-center rock movement owes an audible debt to this set."

--ALL MUSIC GUIDE

What albums/genres of music did Sgt. Pepper influence?

First the Beatles were already playing pyschedelic music on the single Rain and that was one of the first pyschedlic top 40 hits in May of 1966 and Revolver is considered by most people the first pyscehdelic number one album ever with Tomorrow Never Knows being one of the most influential rock tracks of all time with it's extensive use of tape loops, sampling,cacophony, ADT, avant and musique concrete, backwards guitar,eastern mysticism lyrics, traditonal idiian drone, reverse fade in, limiting on drums , non rock modal tune,vocals through a leslie speaker, drone bass,the use of tamboura, reverse drone, seagull noises from laughter and guitar that was recorded backwards and sped up.I guess that one song has more innovation then I think the Rolling Stones had in there 40 year recording career.What albums and genres did Sgt Pepper influence it is considered by many prog musicians like Steve Howe of Yes and Robert Fripp of King Crimson the start of progressive rock, with songs like A Day In the life with it's full symphony orchestra the start of Symphonic rock go ask ELO or the Moody Blues on that one, with it being the first major rock album to go number one with no singles and the year that the albums sold more than the singles it basically started classic rock radio, it had trippy carnival music, classical Indian music with string arrangemets, string arrangememts with no rock instrumnents, a chord that goes 40 seconds, aesthitic linking with art to its music, concentric run out groove, printed lyrics, heavy distorted rock with 19 century brass sound, music hall, a hidden track for dogs, two continous side of music without convntional pauses, tracks that merged into each other wothout silence, orchestral cacophony, tunes with unusaul time signatures though they had done that in previous albums, tunes in dorian mode and mixolydian mode also something they did in previous albums, orchestral crescendo's, it had maybe the first songs with phase shifting and direct injection not your normal pop rock album. Let's see albums it influenced since it is considered by many people the album that changed Rock & Roll into rock though I think that should go to Rubber Soul and to Bob Dylan that's a dumb question let's see it inflenced Pink Floyd' Piper at Gates of Dawn and Dark Side of the Moon,the Rolling Stones santanic majesties reguest, King Crimson first album,the Moody Blues, Jimi Hendris Axis Bold as Love and many others certainly more than faust. And why do people like you have to hold the Beatles to a different standard than everyone else the Beatles like many of there peers were pop rock acts and the Beatles should be judged on that and what they bought to rock music and they certainly bought more than Captain Beefhart or even The Rolling Stones. Many of the acts you champion are strictly one dimensional and you don't have to have eight minutes songs to be great then you woul have rule out most rock artists. One more point on Sgt Pepper you have ignored the fact that the last three songs which covers about nine minutes are linked together without silence and Rubber Soul was the inspiration to Pet Sounds and that when Brian Wilson heard Sgt Pepper he gave up recording his answer to Revolver enough said.
sal66

with songs like A Day In the life with it's full symphony orchestra the start of Symphonic rock go ask ELO or the Moody Blues on that one
The Moody Blues started recording that album before Sgt Pepper was released.

let's see it inflenced Pink Floyd' Piper at Gates of Dawn
Pink Floyd were already performing those songs before the Sgt Pepper sessions began.

I'm stating a fact the song a Day in the Life was recorded and released while the Moody Blues were recording Day's of Future Passed.Pink Floyd were already using some of techniques used on Revolver and both bands were listening to each other while they were recording Sgt.Pepper and Piper's at the Gates of Dawn and the Pink Floyd was using the engineer who recorded Rubber Soul Norm Smith and Syd Barret based Pow R Toch" from one of the songs from Revolver which is a fact. Hey I like both those bands especially Pink Floyd and if you don't like the Beatles that's your opinion but to say the Beatles were not doing original things or were not influential does not have a clue just name one rock artist who has influenced more rock artists than the Beatles if you say Chuck Berry who has really influenced in last 20 years he is from the rock and roll generation the Beatles went from r&r to a rock band.
sal66

"I'm stating a fact the song a Day in the Life was recorded and released while the Moody Blues were recording Day's of Future Passed."

i think your mistake here is assuming that no other band had ideas of their own.

but to say the Beatles were not doing original things or were not influential

those arent my words

Speaking out of complete ignorance, having seen neither the Beatles nor Pink Floyd perform live pre-1967, I have trouble imagining that either band's live performances dictated what they did in the studio. I believe that Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band marks the Beatles' end as a touring band. I also think that the seeds of their destruction were planted because that.

If I recall correctly, speaking out of partial ignorance, Pink Floyd was using Abbey Road Studios and a former Beatles engineer to record Piper at the Gates of Dawn. I can't remember the name of the engineer but it was something like "Not Alan Parsons."

People can discuss who influenced who musically, who was smart enough to rip off other musicians' best innovations or whose popular success made other bands' experimentation and brilliance possible until we're all Moody Blue in the Faces (later replaced by Rod Stewart.)

Others might agree that at the very least there was something in the air (...tonight, hold on... to Phil Collins so I can strangle him.) I'm just assuming that back then everyone was listening to everyone else if only to mess with Brian Wilson's head.

So... Don't even get me started on Denny Laine ripping off his name from a McCartney song recorded during the Pepper sessions. Jeff Lynne had never even heard of the Beatles until he met Nelson Wilbury in the late 80s. And Syd Barrett got the inspiration for his band's name after watching The Muppet Show, traveling back through time and going insane.

There's lots of live bootlegs that you can listen to. (Unlike the beatles, pink floyd could play their own songs.) The sound they created, pre-sgt pepper, is not dissimilar to what ended up on the album.

It's fair enough to assume that these bands were listening to each others albums, but i think it's a mistake to assume that a song was influenced by a song that didn't exist at that time. A song written in jan 1965 probably wasn't influenced very much by a song written in jan 1966, for example.

Like many rock artists at the time Syd Barret was influenced by Revolver and both artists were listening to each other when they both were recording Sgt Pepper and Piper's at the Gates of Dawn at the same time. First the Beatles stopped touring August of 1966 and Syd Barret was influenced by the Beatles use of backward instrumentation ,the guitar through the Leslie speaker. One song in particular on Pink Floyd first album was influenced by Tomorrow Never Knows and that was Pow R Toch" with it's sounds and the chord progression. The use of Mellotron was mentioned as an influence in one of the songs on that album and the use of crossfading was also an influence but to be fair the Beatles were also rumored to be influenced by them. Also Syd Barrett was impressed with the Beatles use of tape loops. Now Jeff Lynne has addmitted many times to be influneced by the Beatles and that is no secret the fusing of orchestra with rock on songs like Srawberry Fields Forever, I am The Walrus and A Day in the Life was a huge influence on ELO and that is commone knowledge. Also the Moody Blues was still recording Day's of Future Passed when Sgt. Peppers was out and it's a fact that A Day in the Life influenced because that was admitted by them also.
sal66

I hardly care if The Beatles invented anything or if The Velvet Underground invented anything, or who came first with what, or what came first with who. My primary concern is: is that invention of a high degree of value? Does it increase the emotional power of that music? I think The Beatles have a shortlist of great songs, but never managed to be consistently great, and only managed the level of genius I look for, in short moments (such as the depth of composition and great feeling of Lennon's Strawberry Fields Forever).

In my opinion, their best songs (not necessarily in order):

Strawberry Fields Forever (probably their/Lennon's lone true masterpiece)
A Day In The Life
Across The Universe
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
I Am The Walrus
Tomorrow Never Knows

Those are the only ones I can think of right now, though there's probably a couple (2-3) more here and there I'm momentarily forgetting. I find the rest very good at best, and most of them are average or decent. If you're into pop ditties with solid-excellent, direct melodies, you can hardly go wrong with The Beatles, for they were very consistent in their medium. Personally though, I find a pop album such as Neutral Milk Hotel's In the Aeroplane Over the Sea significantly more emotionally powerful, of greater depth, and overall a much more profound experience than anything the Beatles composed.

Many of the acts you champion are strictly one dimensional

The acts I champion most are: John Coltrane, Charles Mingus, Captain Beefheart, Robert Wyatt, Velvet Underground, Miles Davis.

You're either lying, extremely confused or haven't listened to them. Your statement is the complete opposite of the truth so reeks of ignorance.

and you don't have to have eight minutes songs to be great then you woul have rule out most rock artists.

I agree. The songs have to be emotionally profound, in-depth, and possess great ingenuity. Longer running times aren't a factor or prerequisite in my choices, but often happen to be a byproduct of the above characteristics converging.

One more point on Sgt Pepper you have ignored the fact that the last three songs which covers about nine minutes are linked together without silence and Rubber Soul was the inspiration to Pet Sounds and that when Brian Wilson heard Sgt Pepper he gave up recording his answer to Revolver enough said.

I haven't ignored squat. For years I've owned and extensively listened to all the albums and songs you're gushing over, and I've also extensively listened to the albums I love now. Combined I've listened to both "your" music and "my" music for thousands of hours each. Despite your assertions about The Beatles, (true or not, I don't care to do the research or even address it), I simply don't find them to be very interesting. None of their albums and very few of their songs live up to my standards. My standards are based on my opinion and if you have a differing opinion then fine.

I find albums like Trout Mask Replica, A Love Supreme, Faust, Black Saint & The Sinner Lady, Rock Bottom and so forth, infinitely more gratifying, emotional, insightful, profound, astonishing, inventive, and important than anything ever done by The Beatles. It is a massive stretch to compare any of The Beatles compositions with one of Beethoven's. It is not when speaking of the above artists' works.

unconvincing

Yea, unfortunately by the looks of it, Pet Sounds (perhaps the most boring choice imaginable), would probably top it if they made such a list.

What's the verdict on Led Zeppelin these days? Is it OK to like them this year?

Led Zep are hot right now. Their greatness was revived with that live album a couple years ago.

50% off the top of my head:

Ray Charles Genius+Soul=Jazz
Don Ellis How Time Passes
Don Ellis Electric Bath
John Coltrane A Love Supreme
Dexter Gordon Our Man in Paris
Sun Ra The Heliocentric Worlds of Sun Ra
Bill Evans Out of the Cool
Charlie Haden Liberation Music Orchestra
Charles Mingus The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady
Stan Getz/Charlie Byrd Jazz Samba
Miles Davis Sketches of Spain
Miles Davis Bitches Brew
The Junior Wells Chicago Blues Band Chicago/The Blues/Today! Vol.1

Most of those will probably make the list. Black Saint and A Love Supreme are both possible top 10 (or even 5) candidates. I don't think any other jazz albums will make the top ten though.

I dont think they should include jazz at all.

Black Saint and the Sinner Lady could be their 2nd or 3rd token jazz album. Bitches Brew would be a cert if it weren't on their 1970s list.

Well, ain't that a brew. I would've sworn that Bitches Brew came out in '69. I even used to own that album.

I hate tokenism. All of the geeks running around dressed as hobbits and elves need to get a life.

Well, they do say that memory is the first thing to... to... to be somewhere.

Bitches Brew is in my 1969 list, but I've seen many people consider it a 1970 album for some reason.

Same goes for London Calling and the '79/80 divide.

I think it's a common policy with jazz albums to indicated the "release" date as the date when recording began, for whatever reason. That's why some sources indicate that Bitches Brew is a 1969 album. My liner notes, though, point out that recording began in 1969 and didn't end until January 1970, so there's no way it was released to the public in '69; it should probably be considered a 70s album.

Wow, I totally missed this comment G Riv. Good point though.

I don't get it. Why don't they just choose when the album was first released. Isn't this the actual release date?

some albums are released nov/dec in the USA, then jan/feb/mar in the UK. both years are quoted, and both are more or less correct.

forever Changes is another one that's both a 1967 and 1968 album.

All I meant is that:

why don't they just choose the very first date of release, such as if it were released in 68 in the UK and 67 in the US, 1967 should be the release date.

In the case of London Calling it was originally released in 79 so it should not be considered an album born in 1980. Rolling Stone annoyingly placed it on it's 80's list, when every other magazine places it in the 70s.

"just choose the very first date of release"

yes, that is what they *should* do.

but then there is the matter of which publications to trust. is white light/white heat a 1967 or 1968 album? i've seen many sources that say 1967, but official vu sources say otherwise.

@#$%!

(:

my (paper) copy of the All Music Guide says white light/white heat was released in Feb 1967!

It is a 1967 album (though the band has denied it, saying they made it in 1968. They were probably too high to actually remember). Most accounts, including Scaruffi's point to it as a 1967 work, but I've always assumed it was at the latter half of '67. How can a band make two milestone rock recordings in a couple months?

My listing above is a typo I've forgotten to correct. Thanks for reminding me.

I still think it's a 1968 album.

If the date in this book is true (which i doubt), it could be argued that it's actually their debut, since VU & Nico was march 1967 (this date also varies depending on the source ..)

My "encyclopedia of albums" lists Odessey & Oracle's release date as Feb 1965!

Wow, 1965!? I always thought it was 1968. I use All Music Guide as my source for recording/release dates, but I admit it is difficult to know who is actually correct.

who really knows with pitchfork, Its either an obvious choice, or something totally from left field when dealing with them so for the obvious choice Id go with Sgt Peppers, left Field being Five Leaves Left by Nick Drake