Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.music Subject: Re: Indispensible (sic) albums and classics Message-ID: <1178@pyuxn.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Oct-84 12:56:45 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxn.1178 Posted: Wed Oct 3 12:56:45 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Oct-84 03:41:21 EDT References: <21d33f02.708@apollo.uucp> <4287@fortune.UUCP> <1161@pyuxn.UUCP> <852@opus.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 56 >>> Either: 1) I am too old for this net; 2) Persons posting >>> "classic albums" are being deliberately obscure and >>> esoteric; or 3) The word "classic" is being seriously >>> misused. [W. Christensen] > Have to agree if what some people are calling "classics" are unknown to > others who know the genre. [Dick Dunn] Perhaps because they don't "know the genre" as well as they might think, e.g., their knowledge ends somewhere between 1969 and 1972 (or pick your own set of boundary years). >> First off, for every person who utters what Christensen said, there >> is a person ten or twenty or thirty years older saying the same thing >> about Christensen's (or whomever's) choice of albums... [Rich Rosen] > But Christensen was saying he was too old?!? [Dick Dunn] He said EITHER he is too old or the term "classic" is being misused. If indeed he's "too old" (i.e., musical tastes stuck at a certain point in time--- age has nothing to do with it), then the discussion need go no further. There's nothing wrong with having one's musical tastes stuck at a certain point in time, but it sort of disqualifies one from making overall value judgments on what is truly classic. >> ... Thirdly, just because >> an album is esoteric or obscure (i.e., *you* never heard of it: that's >> all the words imply) doesn't make it any less of a candidate for >> "classic" status. > No, "esoteric" and "obscure" are not defined by your own perceptions alone. > They reflect a general sense of something not recognized by the masses Thus if the masses have never heard of something, it's not a classic. Rather specious logic. Take for example, an album on many lists: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. THE album that influenced McCartney most in setting the direction for the Pepper sessions was the Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds". (McCartney was very big on one-upsmanship. He heard "Pet Sounds" and thought right away that he had to top it. The same one-upsmanship occurred with "Helter Skelter"; after reading about a Who concert being the noisiest thing a reviewer had ever heard, McCartney felt he had to top that, too.) I don't recall seeing "Pet Sounds" on anyone's list. Not that it was obscure now. But it certainly fits the definition of "serving as a standard, model, or guide", "of enduring interest or quality", etc. that was put forth. Here I'm talking about an album that's not exactly unknown (though sadly under- remembered). What of the other lesser known albums that served as models and guides for those that followed, that still stand up today? I also don't recall seeing any Buddy Holly albums on the list, and certainly Holly's work served as a forward looking standard that influenced the future of popular music. MC5/Velvets/Eno/etc. albums influenced a whole new generation of modern day musicians, and stand as definitive statements and groundbreakers. Just because you've never heard of the groups/artists they influenced doesn't make the work any less classic. It just makes your knowledge base limited. -- "Come with me now to that secret place where the eyes of man have never set foot." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr