Peppers Discussion

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by FatherMcKenzie, Jan 7, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Holy Zoo

    Holy Zoo Gort (Retired) :-)

    Location:
    Santa Cruz
    Done! Please continue...
     
  2. Whiskey Man

    Whiskey Man New Member

    Location:
    Oxford, MS
    The QUOTE button doesn't work when the post you are replying to already already contains quotes.

    I give up. You win. The Beatles' albums are perfect as they were released originally. The group was never under pressure from EMI, Capitol, Brian Epstein, or anyone else to do anything other than what they would have done if they had owned Apple records beginning in 1962. No tracks could be added to or subtracted from any Beatles album without irreparably damaging the original intent of John, Paul, George, and Ringo. "Singles" that were recorded during the same sessions as "album tracks" are radically different from said "album tracks", and would clash with said "album tracks" if they are listened to within 24 hours of listening to said "album tracks". Adding bonus tracks to a Beatles CD, would, I now see, ruin the listening experience that the Beatles so carefully crafted in the 60s. Even if I somehow figured out how to program my CD player not to play those extra tracks, their mere presence on the CD would still corrupt the perfection of the original albums.
     
  3. RDK

    RDK Active Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Geez, WM, you can tone down the sarcasm. The only problem some of us here have been having with your posts is your insistence that your opinion is the only right one and that there can be no possibility of "uncertainty" in the actions of the Beatles, Brian Epstein, or EMI that occured over 30 years ago!

    There's also quite a bit of difference between desiring to have bonus tracks added to the end of existing album releases on CD (which I generally like) and insisting that said tracks should have been there in the first place!
     
  4. FatherMcKenzie

    FatherMcKenzie Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Winnetka, CA, USA
    Thank you, RDK.

    Whiskey (may I call you Whiskey?), I just don't know. It wasn't a matter of winning.

    In essence, nobody's album is 'perfect' the way it was originally released. What is key here, for me, is that I believe the artist is giving me their presentation, not something malleable but something finite. To be pondered and yes, critiqued. And maybe we give too much leeway when its artists like The Beatles, The Stones, etc., who have a large degree positive sentiment on their side before they even step into a studio. In other words, it is sometimes difficult to critique our icons.

    One example: I like the TV series '24'. This season, especially this past Tuesday night's episode, has been way over-the-top for me. I mean, Jack and Nina survived a plane crash, for god's sake. It seems like, this year, the staff of '24' is going for broke and messing with reality big time. And this is just a typical prime time TV action/drama series, not high art in the least.

    But I don't tape the show, edit it to be more real, and, start arguing that this is way it has to be.

    I respect the show for being a bit more challneging than your typical fare and, in return, I believe they unknowingly, unconsciously respect me as an audience member with my ability to throw my arms in the air and ask "You guys have got to be kidding!".

    We can go all over the place on art and its meaning. The value of pop culture, etc.

    If we accept the role of the artist in the world community, then, for me, I accept the artist's work. Would I rearrange the writings of Tolstoy to make it more palatable for me? Edit Scorsese because of this or that? Take The Beatles to task because I don't like what they have released for whatever reason? No.

    Yes, there is a valid place to make your points and any others anyone wants to make. This is what makes up art criticism. You can present your alternatives. They may even be no more correct than what the artist themselves have released. But the artist gets the nod because they did the work. They lived the art. For me, you don't get points for knowing how to play with a programming button or an editing machine.

    Now, I know this begs a lot of questions, in the music world, as we look over the years at the progress of technology and the revisiting of older releases.

    For example, the re-mxing of 'Rubber Soul'. Now there may be a travesty of sorts.

    Or how does one appreciate the American versions versus the British.

    Future generations may never even know that these issues existed, unless that future contains pop culture/pop music historians. And, on a general level of the public, how much attention might be paid to them anyway.

    What about The Who. Do my arguements hold for The Who? Well, they certainly hold. But one would have to say that no one may ever hear the original releases again. Was the artist correct in approving their reissues, thus negating the format of the original releases? Does the artist even have the right to make such alterations? I'm not sure I have an answer for that one.

    Anyway, I hope I did not ramble or go off too much there.
     
  5. Rspaight

    Rspaight New Member

    Location:
    Kentucky
    Art isn't released -- it escapes. Given a choice in the matter, I doubt most artists would ever release *anything*. (How long has it taken for the fifth Harry Potter book?) In most popular media, the demands of the marketplace insist that *something* come out, and that becomes the art. Some mythical album including "Strawberry Fields" and "Penny Lane" becomes Sgt. Pepper. Some mythical thing called "Lifehouse" becomes Who's Next. Some mythical thing called "Smile" slips into the haze.

    After the fact, the artist is rarely happy. But at that point it's too late. The creation exists, and can't be unmade.

    (It's way too easy to bring up Star Wars in this context -- oops. Forget I said anything.)

    It's tempting to want to put ourselves in the shoes of the artist and make the changes we would have made to the original work. In the context of playing around at home with tape or CD-R mixes, that can be a lot of fun.

    But Whiskey Man and others are insistent that the art needs to be changed for everyone according to their design. That's a losing game, I think, because everyone's chasing their own visions of that mythical thing that never existed -- the "real" Pepper, in this case.

    You can chase after all the events that caused the final product to look the way it does, and try to undo them, but at the end of the day there's no "real" Pepper other than the one that came out in the summer of 1967. Everything else is open to opinion, interpretation, faulty memory, and personal bias.

    Adding contemporary bonus tracks to a reissue is a good way to add value. But it shouldn't be viewed as creating a "finished" work that was unfinished before. The past is the past. Let it be.

    Ryan
     
  6. Evan L

    Evan L Beatologist

    Location:
    Vermont
    One thing I know for sure...Whiskey Man will waste away if he's left on his own. He isn't on the phone; hasn't got a home.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine