EWB Listening Club

[RPS]

Hey y'all. I decided to try something out new. With everyone having more time to themselves and with the ability to listen to music more pervasive than ever, I am proposing we do a listening club. Each week, we listen to an album, post out thoughts, allow others to give recommendations about that week's choice. Each Sunday, I will announce the next album to discuss. No worries if you fall behind, you can catch up and listen to previous albums if you miss them. 

I have made a tentative list of 30 albums. I wanted a good balance of critics choices, the general public's tastes and the tastes of music snobs around the globe. So, I took the top albums from three sources - from RateYourMusic's ratings on the best albums, from AcclaimedMusic's compilation of the top 10 most critically reviewed albums and the top 10 selling albums of all time. Greatest hits and soundtracks were excluded (sorry the Eagles and The Bodyguard/Saturday Night Fever/Grease soundtrack!) But that left me with a conundrum - there was some overlap and some albums were on the same list. So, I picked three albums that represented genres underrepresented on the list and that I thought were noteworthy to discuss to be our mystery picks. I have already picked them and included them in the list, so feel free to speculate as to what our mystery picks from 1989, 1995 and 2013 may be. Our list in chronological/alphabetical order 

Spoiler

1. Bob Dylan - Highway 61 Revisited (1965) (Acclaimed Music)

2. The Beatles - Revolver (1966) (Acclaimed Music)

3. Bob Dylan - Blonde on Blonde (1966) (Acclaimed Music)

4. The Beatles - Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Heart Club (1967) (Acclaimed Music)

5. The Velvet Underground & Nico - Self Titled (1967) (Acclaimed Music & RateYourMusic)

6. King Crimson - In The Court of the Crimson King (1969) (RateYourMusic)

7. Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin IV (1971) (Best Selling Albums) 

8. Marvin Gaye - What’s Going On (1971) (Acclaimed Music)

9. David Bowie - The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust (1972) (RateYourMusic)

10. The Rolling Stones - Exile on Main St (1972) (Acclaimed Music)

11. Pink Floyd - The Dark Side of the Moon (1973) (RateYourMusic & Best Selling Albums) 

12. Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here (1975) (RateYourMusic)

13. Fleetwood Mac - Rumours (1977) (Best Selling Albums) 

14. Meat Loaf - Bat Out of Hell (1977) (Best Selling Albums) 

15. The Clash - London Calling (1979)  (Acclaimed Music)

16. ACDC - Back in Black (1980) (Best Selling Albums) 

17. Michael Jackson - Thriller (1982) (Best Selling Albums) 

18. Guns N Roses - Appetite for Destruction (1987) (Jericode's Choice)

19. Michael Jackson - Bad (1987) (Best Selling Albums) 

20. RPS Mystery Pick (1989) 

21. Michael Jackson - Dangerous (1991) (Best Selling Albums) 

22. Nirvana - Nevermind (1991) (Acclaimed Music)

23. RPS Mystery Pick (1995) 

24.  Celine Dion - Falling Into You (1996) (Best Selling Albums of All Time)

25. Shania Twain - Come on Over (1997) (Best Selling Albums) 

26. Radiohead - Kid A (2000) (RateYourMusic)

27. RPS Mystery Pick (2013) 

 

What we have already picked to listen too: 

Spoiler

Week 1: The Beatles - Abbey Road (1969)  (RateYourMusic) 

Week 2: Radiohead - OK Computer (1997) (Acclaimed Music & RateYourMusic)

Week 3: Alanis Morisette - Jagged Little Pill (1995) (Best Selling Albums) 

Week 4: Kendrick Lamar - To Pimp A Butterfly (2015) (RateYourMusic)

Week 5: The Beach Boys - Pet Sounds (1966) (Acclaimed Music)

Week 6: My Bloody Valentine - Loveless (1991) (RateYourMusic)

Week 7: Godspeed You! Black Emperor - Slow Riot for New Zero Kanada (1999) (DFF's Pick)

Week 8: Talking Heads - Remain In Light (1980) (RateYourMusic)

To kick things off, I will random number generate our pick. Whoever listens to our first pick and post their thoughts first will get the next choice. 

Our random number generator picked Abbey Road by the Beatles from 1969, the allegedly #8 best album of all time according to RateYourMusic. Also, it sold 31 million copies and according to the critics is the 20th best album of all time. I am not a Beatles fan, but I look forward to potentially having my mind changed. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbey_Road

https://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/the-beatles/abbey-road/

 

 

[METALMAN]

This is a cool idea - I’m in!

[Roster Depth Sicko No. 2]

Yeah count me in, great idea.

[VerbalPuke]

Interesting, I'll chime in. 

[Liam]

I'll try and get involved.

[METALMAN]

Is the 1995 mystery album Boombastic by Shaggy?

[RPS]

21 minutes ago, metalman said:

Is the 1995 mystery album Boombastic by Shaggy?

Could you even imagine?! 

[GA!]

This sounds like fun. 👍

[LittleDaniel]

Not a Beatles fan either, but I don't think I've ever actually listened to Abbey Road so I'm willing to have my mind changed!

Also I'm gonna guess that the 1995 pick is either Only Built 4 Cuban Lynx or Liquid Swords because there's a serious lack of killer bees on this list.

[Roster Depth Sicko No. 2]

Will listen to the album tomorrow and give some general thoughts but seeing Come Together on the tracklist reminded me of this vintage mashup banger, so figured I'd share it.

Will post some thoughts tomorrow!

[Colly]

4 hours ago, metalman said:

Is the 1995 mystery album Boombastic by Shaggy?

TVs Nick Knowles thinks that Boom Shack-a-Lack by Apache Indian is on that album because he's a massive racist.

[Roster Depth Sicko No. 2]

Album #1: Abbey Road Thoughts:

Spoiler

I've always been aware of The Beatles from a young age, as part of an eclectic musical education from my dad, from having watched the animated Yellow Submarine film, which I haven't seen for years but thought was amazing as a kid. I've listened to the '1' compilation CD plenty of times, but never done a real deep dive into them, so intrigued to see what they come up with away from the singles.

Before I jump in, just a quick moment of appreciation for the album cover. Genuinely iconic and so simple, it's brilliant.

Come Together is a great song, even if the lyrics are absolute nonsense. The musical approach to it is great and in a weird way almost makes sense of the accompanying lyrics, in my opinion. I don't really know how to explain it, but if you look at the lyrics in isolation you'd think they'd taken too many drugs that morning but the song itself somehow makes perfect sense to me.

I had a close friend in my street when I was in junior school who thought Maxwell's Silver Hammer was hilarious to the point he'd start telling stories and randomly swerve it into the first line of the chorus to great amusement to the people around him.

I've never heard Octopus's Garden before and really like it. I Want You (She's So Heavy) dragged for me, more often than not I tend to think that if a song is gonna push the eight minute mark, there needs to be a decent reason. I liked the little bass hook they put in it though. I don't know if it's just an error on the Spotify version but the last three seconds of the song seem to cut out really abruptly as well, which was just odd and didn't help my opinion of it.

Here Comes The Sun is a great tune, and a welcome change of pace after plodding through the previous track. Because was okay and made me think about Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds in its lyrics, otherwise I wasn't that bothered by it.

I thought You Never Give Me Your Money was going to bore me from the start of it but the change in pace a minute in saved it for me, actually quite liked it.

Onto the medley! I didn't realise until looking the album up afterwards that these were intended as a medley of smaller songs, so I wasn't sure at first why they suddenly put so many smaller tracks on the second half of the album. The Sun King initially seemed to me to be a reprise of Here Comes The Sun but the lyrics in the second half of it are just gibberish. Mean Mr Mustard onwards was a bit more interesting and the transitions in between the rest of the medley were really good. Showed a much better example of how to structure a longer song for me, made me think about the similar structure on Jesus of Suburbia and Homecoming on Green Day's American Idiot and how they've built perfectly good shorter songs into something even better than the individual pieces.

Really like the drum work on The End, nice little flourish to end the album with.

All in all, really good album. I can easily see why it was so highly regarded at it's time, there's some great stuff on it.

 

[DFF]

This sounds a cracking idea @RPS, consider me in . 

 

I actually did the Beatles discography a year-ish back:

 

Spoiler

 

Looking back on my RateYourMusic scores, I had it at 3.5/5 ("very good") and was my joint-favourite post-Peppers album (along with Magical Mystery Tour). 

I Want You (She's So Heavy) was my favourite track. It was quite un-Beatles like; almost a low key prog rock track. The sudden ending was deliberate, apparently, and it did take me some getting used to. Of the others, Come Together and Here Comes the Sun are the other songs that have stuck with me, though that's possibly because they are two of the more famous cuts from this one.  

 

 

[RPS]

Abbey Road is an interesting album. I have listened to this album three times. One of those listens was listening to them back to back. Not because I enjoyed it, but to ensure I gave it a fair shake. 

My relationship with the Beatles is fraught. Firstly I grew up with a family member who insisted Madonna and Britney Spears were not "real" music because they did not play their own instruments. I enjoy aspects of the Beatles songs. Certain melodies. Their most popular songs are very good. But I find their lyrics uninteresting. And I often find myself interested in aspects of the Beatles songs, but bored by other aspects. For example, I roll my eyes, for example, when they all harmonize their vocals on Sun King. 

Abbey Road. The album cover is very good. It is iconic and beaten to death but it's very good. It places you in a time and a place that corresponds to the music. The music in this record sounds like the music conveyed by the album cover.

I played this album first while my kids were in the room and secondly when they were downstairs and I was cooking dinner and able to listen to the LP myself. The last time I listened to it with headphones on. My first listen, my kids really enjoyed the first few tracks but lost interest in the second half. They really enjoyed Come Together. On my second listen through, the first half is uninteresting. I enjoy the second half of the medley. It was interesting to throw out a bunch of bite sized songs that felt more like experiments and shifting direction suddenly. 

Nothing stood out as groundbreaking on this album except Here Comes the Sun. The vocals do harmonize at times,  but it's the melody that is just delicious. I Want You (She’s So Heavy) was interesting the first time I heard it, but… the third time I just skipped over it. Come Together is obviously a really good song, but as our colleague @Bad News Jericode stated - the lyrics are nonsense. I mean, that criticism is true of all the Beatles songs. Barely anything they say is of relevance or importance. I guess I could try to find some way to analyze Octopus Garden to find a meaningful metaphor. But that does not feel productive. 

I once had a discussion about how the Beatles are interesting sonically, but how they stood for nothing. This was with an ardent classic rock fan who believed that no good music had been released after 1979. Disco evidently killed music. I said I thought the Beatles were often times interesting sonically, but I felt as though they stood for and represented nothing and most of their lyrics were uninteresting. Something is a great example. This is how the song starts: "Something in the way she moves/Attracts me like no other lover/Something in the way she woos me/I don't want to leave her now/You know I believe and how". I do not find that interesting at all time. It is so vague and non-descript. All I get is George Harrison was horny and could not articulate why. 

Anyways, this rock fan took issue with my assertion that the Beatles stood for nothing and had terrible lyrics by asserting that, EVEN IF THAT WAS TRUE (it is true), that we have to grade things on a curve. The Beatles revolutionized music. The Beatles could not be expected to both sonically revolutionize music and also make thoughtful/interesting lyrics. But I mean there were lots of interesting songwriters releasing music in 60's that were tackling interesting and meaningful subject matters. 

Anyways, I thought Abbey Road was good. 

[VerbalPuke]

I've heard this album a number of times, and it seems like a lot of people will debate this or Sgt. Peppers as their masterpiece. I don't know, could go either way? This is actually my dads favorite album by the Beatles, and I think he'd even say his favorite in general. I'll have to ask him his in depth thoughts some day. 

I'm not a huge Beatles fan, but I also don't mind them either. They're a good band (WHAT DO YOU MEAN GOOD?! THEY'RE GREAT!) but after 7th/8th grade I really sorta lost interest. 

As I'm older I appreciate them more and will even listen to the odd song. Anyway...Abbey Road has some pretty good stuff on it. Come Together is a lot of fun, good song, pretty unique, the lyrics are ridiculous. I get the impression its a story about some sort of hoodlum type of guy, but like "1 and 1 and 1 3..." why is that in there? Of course, I shouldn't be one to judge lyrics because I'm not always that fussed about them, and I mean appreciate good words but my hook is more on how it fits in with the music. 

Looking at the track list there's definitely some good stuff here like Come Together, Maxwells Silver Hammer, Octopus's Garden Here Comes the Sun (I think everybody loves this one, and it's probably the song I heard by them that made me think they could be my favorite band....years ago), and Carry that Weight stand out for me. 

It's funny that Ringo was able to contribute Octopus's Garden when it seemed there was so little else he had song writing credits on where as the other three were obviously all over everything. But it's definitely a hell of a tune, and I always liked that it seemed like the Beatles had this collaborative thing going where any of them could write a hit. Ya know, contrast that with some of their peers where it felt like there was maybe one brain or one star behind the operation. I mean yeah, I think Lennon and McCartney were probably the dudes but Harrison is probably a lot of peoples low key favorite, and well Ringo is Ringo (my dad told me that they asked the band if Ringo was the best drummer in the world and somebody in the band said "He's not even the best drummer in the band").

They're all very good musicians, so the musical quality and production are very good. No doubt its probably an easy album to throw on in the background and enjoy it casually. 

I think RPS is right, this really isn't that groundbreaking but on the other hand I guess I can see why some would hold it up as the Beatles greatest work. It's not my favorite Beatles album (Magical Mystery Tours weirdness wins that for me) but some worthy stuff here. 

Ya know, I feel like I'd like to revisit their really early stuff. It's a pretty big blindspot for me and I wonder if I'd maybe like it more just because it's such bubble gum pop left over from that 50s doo wop love dovey thing.

[Skummy]

The sonic/production side of the Beatles is something I'm really glad you picked up on; McCartney is underappreciated as someone who was really excited by the work of Stockhausen, and by the possibilities offered by tape loops, smart editing, and the growing sense of the studio as an "instrument".

They're a band who started out and reached success at a time when no one knew how to mic up a live concert on anything like the scale that the Beatles were playing, and really had to write the rulebook as they went along.

[Malenko]

My dad loved the Beatles so I've heard all their albums quite a lot. I'm not their biggest fan. When someone asks me about the Beatles, which has happened quite a lot, I just say "They're alright", because it's how I really feel about it. I do like quite a few bands that are/were obviously influenced by their music. I'll listen to this one again and see how I feel about it many years after the last time I heard the whole thing but I feel my opinion won't have changed much since the last time.

However, and even though I'm not a big fan of the Beatles in general, I do like their earlier work, Please Please Me, With the Beatles, Beatles for Sale. Good stuff. Their early 60s work isn't up there in terms of complexity with what they did in the second half of the 60s, I guess, but I still like it more.

[RPS]

28 minutes ago, VerbalPuke said:

I think RPS is right, this really isn't that groundbreaking but on the other hand I guess I can see why some would hold it up as the Beatles greatest work. It's not my favorite Beatles album (Magical Mystery Tours weirdness wins that for me) but some worthy stuff here. 

There is always this catch-22 with the Beatles. They are heralded as groundbreaking and innovative, but that innovation was surpassed by others in the intervening years. So, the Beatles were probably groundbreaking in 1969, but... what does someone in 2021 do with that information?  The Beatles breaking ground in 1969 matter less and less as the years move on because people iterate, expand and experiment. 

It is interesting, because movies and music are movies that art forms that are obsessed with maintaining the past legacy. Compare and contrast that with video games, where it is universally accepted by most that Super Mario Odyssey, for example, is better than Super Mario Bros 1. So many other different art forms put more acclaim on those that iterate, expand and experiment versus those that originated. There are entire industries established in the rock and roll industry about preserving the old guard and paying respects to those originators. This is probably also due to the capitalistic influence on music and the symbiotic relationship between music, record labels, the press and the industry (the rock and roll hall of fame, the Grammys, etc.) The music industry has a vested interest in continuing to promote the Beatles relevance, because they can sell records, the press can write articles about the Beatles, they can have a tribute to the Beatles at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, etc.

This focus on the past legacy also probably has a lot to do with the tension in music regarding it's intended purpose as entertainment or art. The Beatle's albums and songs considered as an expression of emotion or conceptual ideas has far been surpassed. But as entertainment, the Beatles are exceptional. Not just the music, but everything behind them - the story of the band, the relationship between the members, etc. 

[VerbalPuke]

2 hours ago, RPS said:

There is always this catch-22 with the Beatles. They are heralded as groundbreaking and innovative, but that innovation was surpassed by others in the intervening years. So, the Beatles were probably groundbreaking in 1969, but... what does someone in 2021 do with that information?  The Beatles breaking ground in 1969 matter less and less as the years move on because people iterate, expand and experiment. 

It is interesting, because movies and music are movies that art forms that are obsessed with maintaining the past legacy. Compare and contrast that with video games, where it is universally accepted by most that Super Mario Odyssey, for example, is better than Super Mario Bros 1. So many other different art forms put more acclaim on those that iterate, expand and experiment versus those that originated. There are entire industries established in the rock and roll industry about preserving the old guard and paying respects to those originators. This is probably also due to the capitalistic influence on music and the symbiotic relationship between music, record labels, the press and the industry (the rock and roll hall of fame, the Grammys, etc.) The music industry has a vested interest in continuing to promote the Beatles relevance, because they can sell records, the press can write articles about the Beatles, they can have a tribute to the Beatles at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, etc.

This focus on the past legacy also probably has a lot to do with the tension in music regarding it's intended purpose as entertainment or art. The Beatle's albums and songs considered as an expression of emotion or conceptual ideas has far been surpassed. But as entertainment, the Beatles are exceptional. Not just the music, but everything behind them - the story of the band, the relationship between the members, etc. 

Agreed, and honestly I think if you look at the type of stuff the Beatles did compared to their era, there was stuff surpassing them even then. Maybe not as much early on but I think toward the latter half of the 60s there was a lot better psychedelic/hard rock type of stuff. Then again, maybe none of them were catchy or had the hooks the Beatles had. 

Music is certainly weird in that respect, where movies and gaming rely on technology and advancement to progress. Music in a way has done the same but not as much on a mainstream level. What I mean is that a game like...I don't know Metal Gear Solid is revered as great with great stories, graphics, gameplay etc. Nobody is going to say "Yeah I prefer the shitty NES version myself". Technology in music I think has really benefited how we consume it, or even create it for those of us with a home studio (seriously, I mean I was able to record decent songs with minimal computer technology...try doing that in the 70s/80s). But as far as it being a way to advance modern artists into a higher level of fame/relevance/etc there is a lot of weird gate keeping. It's almost like the Beatles are considered the best, it's unquestioned, and you're wrong if you disagree...but movies and gaming are so much more fluid in what an all-time classic is. 

With that said, I am again a hypocrite because I do love some rotten sounding punk. Ya know, shit that sounds like it was recorded underwater? I guess maybe music is different, a poorly made game is frustrating and annoying. Maybe it's like how some of us enjoy B-Movies? But then I don't consider shitty music necessarily bad? 

I feel like the past legacy might be (and forgive me for being mean) boomer gate keeping bullshit. They grew up in an era 50s-70s when electric guitars were really getting dirted up, so they had the benefit of living in an era when new and exciting bands were exploding. Everything after was shit because it's not fucking Jimmy Page soloing with his penis, and then they bitch there is no good music but refuse to try anything new. There is an abundance of great music, I mean Lady Gaga may not be Led Zeppelin but she's sure as hell a spectacle that writes catchy tunes. 

[Skummy]

The focus on legacy is, I think, twofold; firstly is the gatekeeping side of it, but it ties to how most of us experience music through our lifetime - nothing we hear now is likely to excite us the way a new band could when we were 15, and we're likely to hold on to that feeling and, if we don't acknowledge that we can easily fall into the trap of assuming that the music of that era was inherently better. Seeing that on a generational scale, gives you a pretty static view of musical history and "legacy".

More than that I would say is the emergence of "serious" music journalism in the '70s; that really lead to a codifying of music history as one band influencing another, and specific scenes and movements, in a much more structured way than ever really happened. It's especially true for what lead to punk, which has become a set in stone story of X leading to Y, and held up as a more important and influential scene that it perhaps was (and to a lot of the anti-disco sentiment). The writers of the 70s often became the editors and publishers of the 80s and 90s, and so on, so their tastes continued to colour the discourse for decades.