smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Michael Bennett" <mrhonorama@hotmail.com> |
| Subject | Re: Fabs vs Floyd |
| Date | Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:36:50 -0600 |
[Part 1 text/plain (3.2 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Sam --
Of course, the album format is on the wane, as the download age has gotten
us back to the song as the primary unit of music consumption, which it has
been for most of music history. Moreover, even though the album has
occupied a much greater level of importance for the past 45 years or so, I
would say that individual songs have always been more significant.
Anyway, this is a great topic for discussion, as it provides a lot of
insight into both the music and what we as individuals think of music.
Thanks for sharing it.
Mike Bennett
Blog: http://blog.myspace.com/mrhonorama
Record reviews and more at http://fufkin.com
Find out about Chicago shows:
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/chicagopopshowreport/
>From: Sam Smith <sam@lullabypit.com>
>Reply-To: audities@smoe.org
>To: audities@smoe.org
>Subject: Re: Fabs vs Floyd
>Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:12:46 -0700
>
> Michael Bennett wrote:
>
> Sam --
>
> This is an interesting piece, but I think in evaluating legacies, you
> look a lot to influence and how Floyd's sound is more "modern" than
> The Beatles. And in so doing, you certainly make the case more
> compelling than I originally thought.
>
> But the most significant aspect of The Beatles legacy is the music
> itself. This is what makes it so staggering -- so many great songs
> that will endure for generations to come. And it's not that Pink
> Floyd's music won't also live on, but they simply don't have the
> incredible volume of incredible songs.
>
> There's more to be said about this, but that was my first impression.
>
>No arguing this - The Beatles wrote songs that will endure, hopefully,
>for centuries. And no, I don't think PF can even try to compare on the
>song front. Part of that is due to the obvious genius of John/Paul's and
>sometimes George's songwriting, and another part of it has to do with the
>way thing shifted. Once the unit of measurement became the Unified Album,
>the emphasis on individual songs decreased. So Floyd has these longer
>movements where you might have two or three songs woven together, none of
>which is really designed to stand on its own.
>
>So there's kind of an apples and oranges thing at work (although I'm
>keenly aware of The Beatles' role in ushering in that very album-centric
>world, too - had they stayed together, I imagine their 175 release would
>have structurally reminded me more of The Wall than, say, Revolver. I
>could be wrong, but it's a fair guess.
>
>Additionally, even if I'm right about the Fabs being more time-bound at
>the moment, we might think the same thing of Floyd in ten years. I guess
>my argument really isn't about absolutes so much as it about the
>relationship of these artists to the present moment, and that moment is
>going to change again....
>
>--
>
>_______________________
>
>Sam Smith, PhD
>
>[TABLE NOT SHOWN]
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Want a degree but can't afford to quit? Top school degrees online - in as
fast as 1 year
http://forms.nextag.com/goto.jsp?url=/serv/main/buyer/education.jsp?doSearch=n&tm=y&search=education_text_links_88_h288c&s=4079&p=5116
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.