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