::Abbey Road

[Steve-o]

If pasting together most of side 2 as a "medley" wasn't innovative, I dont know what is. As far as comparisons with PF and the WHO goes, I dont think they pushed their stuff "forward" until the early 70's. I think it was very innovative to get back to a superbly produced effort by Sir George. I appreciate the White album and the Naked version for what they were...stripped down, but the beautiful gloss and substance of AR can't be denied. It is certainly ear candy of the best kind.....

[maccastheman]

Innovation without substance is pointless. I agree that the side 2 medley idea was genius, but like everything else with the Beatles it came about because it just worked well with the songs they had written. A lot of the Beatles innovations were natural and almost incidental. - ie, "Strawberry Fields Forever" in two keys, combining Paul's part of "A Day in the Life" with John's part, etc.
The songs came first. And that is certainly the case with Abbey Road. I'll take an incredible song over a sub-standard "innovative" one any day. And Abbey Road is full of incredible songs.
That's why I got so tired of some of the alternative music of the '90s. It just seemed that bands were trying way too hard to be different. Maybe 1 in 20 succeeded by having both substance and great innovation. And usually those were the ones that wrote great songs. I think that's why I like The Aracade Fire so much. They have the songs to back up their experiments.

[kylestyle]

That's why I got so tired of some of the alternative music of the '90s. It just seemed that bands were trying way too hard to be different. Maybe 1 in 20 succeeded by having both substance and great innovation. And usually those were the ones that wrote great songs. I think that's why I like The Aracade Fire so much. They have the songs to back up their experiments.

Which bands in your opinion, tried too hard to be different? I think of that early-mid 90s era as a time where record companies signed up heavy rock bands left, right and centre, so you had Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Nirvana, Stone Temple Pilots, Alice In Chains etc, all of them had substance in their music but innovationwise it had all been done before in the early 70s Sabbath / Purple style metal and punk music.

If anything, they tried too hard to follow the music in their heart, and there's nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with wearing your influences on your sleeve.

[maccastheman]

Which bands in your opinion, tried too hard to be different? I think of that early-mid 90s era as a time where record companies signed up heavy rock bands left, right and centre, so you had Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Nirvana, Stone Temple Pilots, Alice In Chains etc, all of them had substance in their music .

I was mainly referring to bands like the Butthole Surfers and the like. Most of those Seattle bands were straight forward rock bands, and I agree they weren't trying to be innovative. I just had this friend back then that only wanted to hear "alternative" music. He wouldn't listen to anything unless they played it on the alternative radio stations. I just thought a lot of it was really pointless. My only problem with some of the bands you mentioned is that they were too heavy. I'm all about emotion flowing forth in your music, but I look for a mix between joy and sorrow. Some sort of redemption. All sorrow all of the time leads to really, really bad things. I hate to keep bringing them up, but that Arcade Fire CD has all of that on it. The reason the name of the album is called Funeral is because a lot of the band members lost loved ones during the recording of the album. They deal with the sorrow, but there's also redemption and recovery.
In defense of Pearl Jam, they seem to have more of a sense of redemption in their music than, say, Nirvana. I was just never into that scene. Had I been heavily into it, I probably wouldn't be alive today. I mean that in all seriousness. I was depressed enough as it was in the early '90s.
I was relieved when Oasis and Brit Pop came along. It was something I could listen to and not get depressed over, lol. I also liked Beck a lot. And there are so many new bands I'm into now because they are fun and have substance.

[davey boy]

If pasting together most of side 2 as a "medley" wasn't innovative, I dont know what is. As far as comparisons with PF and the WHO goes, I dont think they pushed their stuff "forward" until the early 70's. I think it was very innovative to get back to a superbly produced effort by Sir George. I appreciate the White album and the Naked version for what they were...stripped down, but the beautiful gloss and substance of AR can't be denied. It is certainly ear candy of the best kind.....

I agree the production was their best(clearer/heavy sounding bass and drums/stereo ect) but not their music in the way they used to set the trends.
The who/hendrix/free,ect were inventing the new"heavey rock" sound.something that the beatles had tried and drasticly failed with (helter skelter).they just could not do it!
dont get me wrong "abbey" is better than anything any of those bands have ever done,but i think music wise,it sailed very close to "middle of the road".

[Steve-o]

The Beatles were never about "heavy rock"---weren't they more about finely crafted pop/rock songs with great melodies and lyrics? Songs of a generation--some of the greatest material ever recorded, in fact. Sure....they dabbled at times in heavier music, but to say HS is a failure in this genre is just not true. I find "hard rock" for hard rock's sake to be tedious and rather boring--at least some of the time. I would bet that their melodic tendencies kept them from going in this direction "fulltime". But I bet they could have had they chose to.

[Bluebird]

I just think HS was a try to turn the music in a new way. Like Paul always changes his way of recording, he liked to try some clearly new. I think Helter Skelter is a brilliant heavy song. His voice was eminent.

[HeyJude]

Abbey Road close to "middle of the road"? Now c'mon, that's just a weird thing to say, especially having sutff like I Want You and The End... You can't put the Beatles' music into strict genres, there are no genres for it in fact, it's just plain awesome music.

[davey boy]

The beatles had already done the medley thing. They pieced together half of pepper and a few tracks on the beatles, so to say the medley on abbey
is ground breaking is just not true.
Listen to tommorow never knows,then to this album.see the difference?
Tommorow never knows, in the year 4000 will still sound light years ahead of its time.AR never has.

[Berkeleyan]

Abbey Road: where top quality works of art are handled in a such a way that does not get any better so that slickness meets perfection.

What else can I say ?