|
Poster:
|
elbow1126 |
Date:
|
August 06, 2012 03:08:04am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: The Year In Rock: 1968 |
Interesting to lump Hendrix with the Beatles and Stones. Jimi was never that into freeform or no-form playing. Seems to me the reviewer is comparing studio music from those unvarnished rock "n" rollers vs. live performances of the Grateful Dead. Also I don't think I have ever heard the term progressive rock used to describe The Grateful Dead. Was TIFTOO considered "progressive" before bands like King Crimson, Genesis and Yes arrived about a year later?
|
Poster:
|
light into ashes |
Date:
|
August 06, 2012 03:31:26am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: The Year In Rock: 1968 |
It is kind of interesting that the 2nd reviewer puts Hendrix in the "unvarnished rock 'n' roll" category, but I wouldn't bother digging too deeply into his opinions. After all, he starts off saying that "long solos within a virtually unstructured form" are a pernicious development in rock, and then puts Electric Ladyland & Wheels of Fire among the best albums of the year. Heck, he also puts Iron Butterfly in the same category as the Grateful Dead!
His main point seems to be that he prefers "instantly gripping" rock, and generally feels threatened by jazz/rock or classical/rock hybrids as watering down "true" rock - so a set like 12/29/68 that's all one extended medley with long instrumental passages, drum solos etc, probably outlasted his patience.
'68 is indeed very early for someone to call the Dead's music "progressive;" I don't think I've seen another instance from that era, but it certainly fits Anthem.
|
Poster:
|
elbow1126 |
Date:
|
August 06, 2012 04:03:53am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: The Year In Rock: 1968 |
Instantly gripping, unvarnished rock is a pretty funny way to describe the Beatles, 1 year after the release of St. Pepper's as well. I don't think the Beatles returned to that style until some of the stuff from the Abbey Road/Let It Be sessions (1 after 909 comes immediately to mind). Still, side 2 of Abbey Road was far from unvarnished.
|
Poster:
|
ringolevio |
Date:
|
August 06, 2012 05:04:38am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: The Year In Rock: 1968 |
Let's keep in mind this was written by a Harvard undergraduate ... "pretentious" is right. He's trying to sound like, um, a music critic.
|
Poster:
|
light into ashes |
Date:
|
August 06, 2012 11:38:05am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: The Year In Rock: 1968 |
Well actually, the White Album was full of instantly gripping, unvarnished rock.
I thought it was funny how the 1st reviewer kept trying to prove all the reasons the White Album was not a great album. A vain attempt!
|
Poster:
|
elbow1126 |
Date:
|
August 06, 2012 11:45:06am |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: The Year In Rock: 1968 |
True, although The Beatles was all over the map. Unvarnished rock, sweet little tunes, varnished tunes (e.g. Dear Prudence and even to some extent Piggies with its harpsichord) and of course Revolution 9 which was probably the reason he didn't think it was a great album. I think the Let It Be material without the Phil Spector embellishment was the Beatles going back to their roots.
I have always thought if you had cut The Beatles to a single album you probably could create the greatest Beatles album of them all. I'm just not sure which songs you would cut and i am pretty sure it would have a very different feel with only half the songs.
|
Poster:
|
light into ashes |
Date:
|
August 06, 2012 01:00:01pm |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: The Year In Rock: 1968 |
I think it's the greatest Beatle album just the way it is...
|
Poster:
|
elbow1126 |
Date:
|
August 06, 2012 01:12:44pm |
|
Forum:
|
GratefulDead
|
Subject:
|
Re: The Year In Rock: 1968 |
I give the edge to Revolver but would put it a close second on my list. I guess a suped up Revolver might be a good way to describe what a trimmed down white album might sound like.
TVNews
OpenLibrary