Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
To understand why Sgt Pepper is held in such high regard, and why In the Court of the Crimson King is considered to be the beginning of Progressive Rock, we have to take a step back and define exactly what we mean by "first". We often take it at its literal meaning when its use isn't quite that precise or accurate. English is like that, we seldom use words for their precise literal meaning - I'm not literally dying of thirst nor am I dying in any figurative way, but a cup of tea would be most welcome at this moment in time. When we stake a claim of something being the first of some-such we know that this doesn't have to be chronologically the first or even the only instance in at any given time. We are simply acknowledging that this is perhaps the first example of something that people remember, or it was the first occurrence that garnered a notable measure of attention at the time, or sometime later. Once that thing had been noticed by virtue of the whatever it is that brought it to the public eye it may be possible to use that as a yardstick to measure earlier, lesser known examples of the same thing, but they will never be regarded as "the first".
In the case of ItCotCK there are a number of albums released before it that can lay claim to being Progressive Rock, some in their totality and others just in part but this was the album that made people stop and take notice. That's not to belittle, ignore or overlook those other album because most of them (at least those mentioned thus far) have not been forgotten and their importance has not been disregarded, many of them were well-received and popular from their initial release but none of them were regarded as Prog Rock (or containing elements thereof) until after ItCotCK's release (some many, many years after). What ItCotCK contained was a recognisable paradigm-shift away from the norm in the underground music scene that had spored many great albums in the later half of the 1960s. What it represents is a convergence of ideas that had been brewing away in disparate corners of the scene and the result was something that couldn't be easily categorised at the time. ItCotCK was not the first, but it was the first that people recognised as being different to everything else. Earlier albums may have been just as ground-breaking but they were readily accepted as belonging to a collective trend in music that was evolving out of the post-hippy rock scene. ItCotCK and 21st Century Schizoid Man in particular came as a punch in the face of all that, arriving as it did at just the right moment in time when just such an album was needed to mop-up the "summer of love" aftermath and a return to the realities of real life. Other albums such as Ars Longa Vita Brevis may have preceded ItCotCK chronologically but they didn't have the same impact or effect and without ItCotCK they wouldn't be regarded as Prog Rock at all. (and let's get real here - The Nice made their mark with Five Bridges, not Ars Longa Vita Brevis.)
What we have with Sgt. Pepper and The Beatles is more or less the same. They were not the first band to write all their own material but they were the first to make it the accepted norm among pop groups [breaking away from the Tin Pan Alley approach]; they weren't the first to utilise every aspect of the studio as a creative tool but they were the first that the record buying public really noticed; they weren't the first band to record albums as being more than a vehicle for their chart singles but they were the first to popularise it. The Beatles grew up in a very short space of time from an early sixties "boy band" beat combo to serious (or semi-serious) pop-rock band that kept pace with their adolescence fan's growth into middle and late-teen maturity - that they don't appeal so much to people who where born in the sixties and later should therefore come as no great surprise. What was a first for the Beatles in that time was also a first for their audience, and since the Beatles were bigger than every other band around then so was their audience. Sgt Pepper in this respect is a coming of age album where The Beatles asserted themselves as grown-up versions of their earlier "four young lads from Liverpool" image, but more on that after this short digression...
There is a hell of a lot of tosh written about the Sixties, none of it particularly accurate and most of it exaggeration and hearsay. The adage "if you can remember the sixties, you weren't there" (or paraphrases thereof) being the biggest fib of all - if you were there and can't remember them then your testimony is questionable at best. The vast majority of the record buying youth were not hippies or freaks (those wastrels were hardly likely to be buying records anyway), they were normal folk who either went to school clutching copies of Record Mirror and The New Musical Express or had regular day jobs so they could earn money to spend in record shops and fashionable boutiques, and attend gigs in evenings and weekend. [There was a lot more to the gig scene back then than just the big-name venues and festivals that get remembered now]. Those are the youth who bought Sgt. Pepper, and they are the record-buying public that made those 'underground' albums popular. Can they remember the Sixties? Of course they bloody can. Did they recognise Sgt. Pepper as something special? Of course they bloody did. What we can say about them with a fair degree of accuracy is, like us die-hard prog fans today, they were incredibly knowledgeable of the music scene at the time. They read the weekly music papers and magazines from cover-to-cover because that was all there was, copies of each publication would get passed around common rooms, staff canteens and youth clubs. And they listened to the radio. While a lot of hot air and noise is made about FM stations in the US, most of that is inconsequential because it was too localised - tiny stations broadcasting line-of-sight transmissions to a limited audience. Here in the UK underground music was on national radio (albeit late at night but that's the only time this knowledgeable record-buying youth would listen to it anyway) with programmes such as The Perfumed Garden and Top Gear playing the kind of music that wouldn't get broadcast on daytime programming but was widely reported in all the weekly music papers. While a teenager growing up in the sticks would be unable to see their favourite underground band playing live in The Marquee or The Roundhouse in London, they could hear them on the radio and read about them in the music press and thus buy their albums in Woolworths and Our Price.
So... with Sgt Pepper we don't have (one of) the first Prog Rock albums, or (one of) the first concept album-that-isn't-quite-a-concept-but-it-is albums, we don't see any real ground-breaking developments in music that hadn't been seen before or the incorporation of any wacky out there left-field music genres that hadn't already been used previously in pop music. Yet it is universally accepted as being a ground-breaking album that changed the face of pop and rock music pretty much from the day of its release [as measured by Jimi Hendrix playing his version of the title track live on stage three days later as Harrison and McCartney watched from the wings]. What we have with Sgt Pepper is a culmination of lots of different unrelated elements converging onto a single moment in time (exactly like ItCotCK). All those components existed on other albums but they all converged on Sgt Pepper at the right moment when the audience was at their most receptive for change.
At this point I should address the 'Tron issue thing: There is no 'tron in Sgt Pepper (although as Alan has noted there is some on Strawberry Fields Forever) and nor should there be because you have to remember what the 'Tron was invented for, which was to replace the costly studio orchestra that many bands couldn't afford to use in their recording sessions. While a couple of the Beat-less bought the new fangled instrument they didn't need to use them in the studio simply because if they wanted flute, trombones or strings playing on their tracks they'd employ someone to play the real acoustic instrument. Ironically, because they'd then apply studio treatment to those acoustic recordings sometimes the end result sounds more like a 'tron than the real 'tron did. It would take later albums like ItCotCK to elevate the 'umble 'tron beyond its usage as an ersatz orchestra replacement to an bona fide instrument in its own right.
Love it or loathe it, and it has to be said, from my personal view there is a lot on Sgt Pepper not to like and very little that I do like, it is easy to be dismissive of large chunks of the album when each track is taken individually and with little regard to context. Contextually the theme of Sgt Pepper (and the double A-side single that accompanies it) isn't that far removed from the overall concept of it (which is hardly surprising) - it's grown-up album that takes small musical steps forward but thematically it's making longing looks backwards as it is an album of nostalgia for a time that never quite existed. In that respect it's as though the Beatles themselves were wishing for a present that harks back to their past, for even when they are being optimistic there remains a glint of cynical pessimism ("It's getting better all the time .... it can't get no worse"). That the Lonely Hearts Club Band is a brass band reflects McCartney's childhood and the beginnings of his musical education, similarly the music for Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! recalls the music of fairgrounds and circuses from Lennon's youth although lyrically it's based on an English circus poster from 100 years earlier (sorry José more Fanque and Well's than Barnham and Bailey - although musically in England it would have been Smart and Chipperfield that inspired the Beatless, and of course the fairground in Sefton Park, Liverpool). The reason for all this nostalgia was not just the Beatles trying to escape the claustrophobia of fame, that alone would not have caught with the record-buying public, but that was a reflection of what was happening in London, the UK and Europe at the time. By the mid-sixties the post-war optimism was wearing thin, especially with the teenagers who had suffered the hardships of the post-war period without experiencing the grim reality of the war itself, they too wanted the childhood that had been denied them. In Germany this would give rise to the dourness of Krautrock (following a generous push from London psychedelia, including from Sgt Pepper itself), in Carnaby Street and on The Kings Road this saw a revival and reinvention of Edwardiana and Victoriana, and unlike its American counterpart the English Psychedelic scene revelled in this whimsical arty nostalgia as escapism and fanciful fantasy excursion, but always with an unnerving sinister undercurrent, the aftershock of something unpleasant, either past and impending.
This was the melting pot from which Progressive Rock was cast. I (infamously perhaps) have argued strongly that Prog Rock would never have arisen in America, and this is why. Sure some American bands did things that are the similar to the point of being practically the same but they never came to anything because the catalysing environment wasn't there to propagate them - unlike in the UK, Germany, Holland, France, Italy and Sweden where the wind-blown seeds of Sgt Pepper, together with Ars Longa Vita Brevis, Shine On Brightly, Piper at the Gates, The Soft Machine and Days of Future Past, and of course In the Court of the Crimson King, would germinate into something else entirely.
Have to agree with pretty much all of this, especially the futility and delusion of 'firsts by chronology' part. (Very perceptive insight) Not sure what you mean as the source of the 'dourness' of Krautrock though: Do the losers have post war optimism? Reading the journalism of Ulrike Meinhof at around this time made me think that German youth resentment stemmed from the belief that many of the lower ranking officials in the Nazi regime were still in power and not held accountable for their past
Ditto and great post Dean.
Regarding the last bt of your post Iain, I too have read quite a few interviews with folks from the Krautrock "scene" and most of them tell of the same thing. What little money the country had (post WW2 after having been bombed back to the stone age) did not go to new teachers. What up and coming musicians then faced at school were music teachers who believed the schlager to be god's private ear-lotion.
Now if there is anything worth rebelling against in this strange world of ours it is surely the German take on muzak. Krautrock needed to happen imo - hell it could go a couple more rounds right about now. Schlager is huge in certain parts of Denmark (Jutland, where I'm situated, being one of the hotspots)
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: May 04 2017 at 10:20
ExittheLemming wrote:
Not sure what you mean as the source of the 'dourness' of Krautrock though: Do the losers have post war optimism? Reading the journalism of Ulrike Meinhof at around this time made me think that German youth resentment stemmed from the belief that many of the lower ranking officials in the Nazi regime were still in power and not held accountable for their past
The two are related: there was a degree of post-war optimism in West Germany, known as the Wirtschaftswunder (ecomonic miracle), and that economic recovery/rebuilding of Germany was controlled by the same administrators and officials from the Nazi regime. In that respect the resentment wasn't so much that they were going unpunished but that they were prospering from it. Youth disaffection with one was a consequence of the other and Krautrock was one of the products of that; by the latter half of 1968 the previous year's Summer of Love had fizzled out in every major country of the Western world and youthful rebellion had turned into violent student riots. While the initial impetus that sparked this unrest was tenuously linked, the causes of it, the fuel for it and the degree of severity was different in each country. (ps: there is no irony in my use of dourness to describe Krautrock, it's pretty difficult to call any of it light and breezy, especially when you compare it against the pop music that immediately preceded it¹).
¹ ... the word I was grasping for there was indeed 'Schlager'.
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
Posted: May 04 2017 at 14:24
I'm amazed that Sgt. Pepper's gets this much attention 50 years after it's birth. Ok, ok. I get it. I was 16 when this album stormed the world and it was cool to like the Beatles in 1967. For most Americans, I suppose. I was a native New Yorker born to left wing parents that couldn't get enough of Dylan, Pete Seeger and the NYC folk clubs that became all but extinct in 1966.
I personally never felt that Sgt. Pepper's was a great record. Revolver was a great album. However, Sgt. Pepper's was greatly recorded and that did not escape my attention. I would be lying if I denied that both albums fostered my love for the sound of music, if not for the music itself.
With its 24 hour broadcasting on radio, however, Sgt. Pepper's was an event. A happening. An epoch. I wouldn't be surprised that those that love the album remember exactly where they were and what they were doing the first time they heard Sgt. Pepper's in 1967. It was culturally that hugh.
There was another factor that put Sgt. Pepper's on the weary list for me. My parents both liked the music on Sgt. Pepper's and were glad that the album featured uplifting songs like A little Help From My Friends and even Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, despite the drug references, as opposed to depressing songs like Eleanor Rigby, He Said He Said, and the trippy Tomorrow Never Knows.
Now when your parents are grooving to "your music", its time to move on. Luckily, the Beatles decided to move on too with the White Album. Now all the left wing radicals in my family had music they could appreciate.
My parents liked the White Album, but not as much as Sgt. Pepper's and never once played it.
Now that's the type of music you can get into when you turn 17. 1968. What a time.
Oh, were we discussing prog? Sorry chaps. Carry on.
Edited by SteveG - May 04 2017 at 14:42
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Joined: October 27 2016
Location: Aussie/NZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1409
Posted: May 11 2017 at 00:57
Idk, the Beatles for the most part feel like a band that you are mean't to take as a joke, as they where always rediculously cheesy (and very cringy in their early years) but then you end up credentialing without realizing that you don't really know why in the first place
Edited by Thatfabulousalien - May 11 2017 at 01:19
Classical music isn't dead, it's more alive than it's ever been. It's just not on MTV.
Joined: October 27 2016
Location: Aussie/NZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1409
Posted: May 11 2017 at 01:03
micky wrote:
aglasshouse wrote:
BarryGlibb wrote:
Prog wasn't "invented" until 1969 was it? So....... no.
Ehhh, debatable. Moody Blues released Days of Future Passed in '67, which is often considered to be prog. Self-conscious prog didn't come until 69-70 though, I guess. Just depends on your outlook really.
still surprises me this myth still persists...
no.. and no
while the Moodies in 67 might be debatable..personally I think it is and was...
this one from 68 isn't... hard core sympho prog man a year earlier than K.C supposed invented it.
Holy f**k, that album is more prog than Crimson where until Lizard!
They definitely beat Crimson, no question.
Hmmm, so Keith Emerson invented prog?
Classical music isn't dead, it's more alive than it's ever been. It's just not on MTV.
Holy f**k, that album is more prog than Crimson where until Lizard!
They definitely beat Crimson, no question.
Hmmm, so Keith Emerson invented prog?
Dean wrote:
Rednight wrote:
^Definitely not Blue Phantom as I remember
the group's name being in Italian. Your second suggestion just might be
it (I'm expecting a call back from a friend to verify it). Thanks for
the assist, regardless.
It really, really, doesn't matter. If you can't remember it and
Mike hasn't guessed it then its value as the first of anything is
precisely zero even if your mate does come back with a likely name.
Being chronologically the first counts for nothing other than being a
mildly interesting footnote in the annals of European pop music history.
Not sure if you have followed the thread since inception but as Dean has correctly pointed out, doing something first is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to 'chroniciling' popular culture
Joined: January 18 2014
Location: Mar Vista, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 4807
Posted: May 13 2017 at 15:35
Dean wrote:
Rednight wrote:
^Definitely not Blue Phantom as I remember the group's name being in Italian. Your second suggestion just might be it (I'm expecting a call back from a friend to verify it). Thanks for the assist, regardless.
It really, really, doesn't matter. If you can't remember it and Mike hasn't guessed it then its value as the first of anything is precisely zero even if your mate does come back with a likely name. Being chronologically the first counts for nothing other than being a mildly interesting footnote in the annals of European pop music history.
You nailed it, AFlowerKingCrimson. It was indeed le stelle di Mario schifano! Thanks for clearing that up and helping to set straight an important part of European prog music history.
"It just has none of the qualities of your work that I find interesting. Abandon [?] it." - Eno
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 35847
Posted: May 14 2017 at 10:08
In regards to the album's significance to a site that archives Prog, I think that it really does matter. And for that matter, I'd say that your opinion matters too (at least people's opinions here on such matters matter to me, but I have a rather dull life). :)
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
Posted: May 15 2017 at 04:10
ExittheLemming wrote:
Thatfabulousalien wrote:
Holy f**k, that album is more prog than Crimson where until Lizard!
They definitely beat Crimson, no question.
Hmmm, so Keith Emerson invented prog?
Dean wrote:
Rednight wrote:
^Definitely not Blue Phantom as I remember
the group's name being in Italian. Your second suggestion just might be
it (I'm expecting a call back from a friend to verify it). Thanks for
the assist, regardless.
It really, really, doesn't matter. If you can't remember it and
Mike hasn't guessed it then its value as the first of anything is
precisely zero even if your mate does come back with a likely name.
Being chronologically the first counts for nothing other than being a
mildly interesting footnote in the annals of European pop music history.
Not sure if you have followed the thread since inception but as Dean has correctly pointed out, doing something first is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to 'chroniciling' popular culture
Really? Has Dean’s opinion regarding the lack of importance in regards to priority become a incontestable fact? This type of the “throw the baby out with the bath water” reasoning has resulted in many inane PA threads or polls such as Pink Floyd v. Hawkwind. Pink Floyd came first and influenced later bands like Hawkwind and Tangerine Dream. Floyd are the inspiration of said groups. Just because there is no smoking gun as to when and where the term progressive rock originated, that is no reason to treat known milestones with the same attitude. Priority does matter as Syd Barret's version of Floyd was the inspiration for psychedelic space rockers to follow, from Hawkwind to Tangerine Dream. To deny his genius in both innovation and influence is a disservice to both his accomplishments and standing in prog. And this is coming from someone who does not worship at the alter of Syd as you and Dean seem to do.
Not important? My arse. Its time to kick this mentality to the curb where it belongs, instead of embracing it, let alone agreeing with it. Popular culture may difficult to chronicle at times, but that standard does not apply to popular art.
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: May 15 2017 at 05:51
SteveG wrote:
ExittheLemming wrote:
Thatfabulousalien wrote:
Holy f**k, that album is more prog than Crimson where until Lizard!
They definitely beat Crimson, no question.
Hmmm, so Keith Emerson invented prog?
Dean wrote:
Rednight wrote:
^Definitely not Blue Phantom as I remember the group's name being in Italian. Your second suggestion just might be it (I'm expecting a call back from a friend to verify it). Thanks for the assist, regardless.
It really, really, doesn't matter. If you can't remember it and Mike hasn't guessed it then its value as the first of anything is precisely zero even if your mate does come back with a likely name. Being chronologically the first counts for nothing other than being a mildly interesting footnote in the annals of European pop music history.
Not sure if you have followed the thread since inception but as Dean has correctly pointed out, doing something first is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to 'chroniciling' popular culture
Really? Has Dean’s opinion regarding the lack of importance in regards to priority become a incontestable fact? This type of the “throw the baby out with the bath water” reasoning has resulted in many inane PA threads or polls such as Pink Floyd v. Hawkwind. Pink Floyd came first and influenced later bands like Hawkwind and Tangerine Dream. Floyd are the inspiration of said groups. Just because there is no smoking gun as to when and where the term progressive rock originated, that is no reason to treat known milestones with the same attitude. Priority does matter as Syd Barret's version of Floyd was the inspiration for psychedelic space rockers to follow, from Hawkwind to Tangerine Dream. To deny his genius in both innovation and influence is a disservice to both his accomplishments and standing in prog. And this is coming from someone who does not worship at the alter of Syd as you and Dean seem to do.
Not important? My arse. Its time to kick this mentality to the curb where it belongs, instead of embracing it, let alone agreeing with it. Popular culture may difficult to chronicle at times, but that standard does not apply to popular art.
That's not what I said and Iain has interpreted my opinion correctly. An obscure Italian band that no one has heard of may have produced something that we later recognise as being earlier than Sgt Pepper but it's impact was negligible at the time - this makes it an interesting footnote in the time-line but not an important album in the chronology of popular culture or Progressive Rock.
The reason why Barratt's Floyd is so important relates back to underground scene that I mentioned in my overlong treatise and specifically the scene that was centred around Ladbroke Grove, Portabello Road and Notting Hill Gate. That geographical location is not only associated with Hawkwind and other "Clearwater Productions" bands such as High Tide, but also with early Floyd, Quintessence and many of the Canterbury Scene bands, along with mainstream favourites such as Cream and Hendrix; it was also a regular hang-out for various Beatles while recording in Abbey Road (2 miles away). It was also the home of Island Records and SARM studios, and a cheap area for starving musicians to live in. So it was essentially the epicentre of the underground Psych scene in London and the spiritual birthplace of Prog Rock, therefore chronology of they bands that frequented the Notting Hill area is the chronology of Prog Rock (up to 1970 at least).
There is a hell of a lot of tosh written about the Sixties, none of it particularly accurate and most of it exaggeration and hearsay. The adage "if you can remember the sixties, you weren't there" (or paraphrases thereof) being the biggest fib of all - if you were there and can't remember them then your testimony is questionable at best. The vast majority of the record buying youth were not hippies or freaks (those wastrels were hardly likely to be buying records anyway), they were normal folk who either went to school clutching copies of Record Mirror and The New Musical Express or had regular day jobs so they could earn money to spend in record shops and fashionable boutiques, and attend gigs in evenings and weekend. [There was a lot more to the gig scene back then than just the big-name venues and festivals that get remembered now]. Those are the youth who bought Sgt. Pepper, and they are the record-buying public that made those 'underground' albums popular. Can they remember the Sixties? Of course they bloody can. Did they recognise Sgt. Pepper as something special? Of course they bloody did. What we can say about them with a fair degree of accuracy is, like us die-hard prog fans today, they were incredibly knowledgeable of the music scene at the time. They read the weekly music papers and magazines from cover-to-cover because that was all there was, copies of each publication would get passed around common rooms, staff canteens and youth clubs. And they listened to the radio. While a lot of hot air and noise is made about FM stations in the US, most of that is inconsequential because it was too localised - tiny stations broadcasting line-of-sight transmissions to a limited audience. Here in the UK underground music was on national radio (albeit late at night but that's the only time this knowledgeable record-buying youth would listen to it anyway) with programmes such as The Perfumed Garden and Top Gear playing the kind of music that wouldn't get broadcast on daytime programming but was widely reported in all the weekly music papers. While a teenager growing up in the sticks would be unable to see their favourite underground band playing live in The Marquee or The Roundhouse in London, they could hear them on the radio and read about them in the music press and thus buy their albums in Woolworths and Our Price.
This is true. It was not the hippies living on the streets of the East Village and crashing in "crash pads" who were buying the record albums. Where would they have kept them. As the who so aptly put it they were "air conditioned gypsies". It was the rich kids from Long Island who had the bucks to buy and the bedrooms to keep albums. Concerts were another thing altogether. The "wastrel" hippies could always scrape together a couple of bucks to stand in line at the Fillmore East with the rich kids from Long Island and get in an see some top notch music. So the "wastrel" hippies did have quite a bit of influence on the music scene in America. I know because I was there and vaguely remember it.
Joined: December 13 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2111
Posted: May 15 2017 at 10:32
I don’t look at Sgt. Pepper as ‘prog’ per se. It does have many fascinating creative touches, but this doesn’t mean it’s ‘prog’. I’d wager that The Moody Blues’ pinnacle album Days of Future Passed was much more ahead of it’s time than Sgt. Pepper.
“Music is enough for a lifetime but a lifetime is not enough for music.” - Sergei Rachmaninov
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: May 16 2017 at 02:28
timothy leary wrote:
dean wrote:
There is a hell of a lot of tosh written about the Sixties, none of it particularly accurate and most of it exaggeration and hearsay. The adage "if you can remember the sixties, you weren't there" (or paraphrases thereof) being the biggest fib of all - if you were there and can't remember them then your testimony is questionable at best. The vast majority of the record buying youth were not hippies or freaks (those wastrels were hardly likely to be buying records anyway), they were normal folk who either went to school clutching copies of Record Mirror and The New Musical Express or had regular day jobs so they could earn money to spend in record shops and fashionable boutiques, and attend gigs in evenings and weekend. [There was a lot more to the gig scene back then than just the big-name venues and festivals that get remembered now]. Those are the youth who bought Sgt. Pepper, and they are the record-buying public that made those 'underground' albums popular. Can they remember the Sixties? Of course they bloody can. Did they recognise Sgt. Pepper as something special? Of course they bloody did. What we can say about them with a fair degree of accuracy is, like us die-hard prog fans today, they were incredibly knowledgeable of the music scene at the time. They read the weekly music papers and magazines from cover-to-cover because that was all there was, copies of each publication would get passed around common rooms, staff canteens and youth clubs. And they listened to the radio. While a lot of hot air and noise is made about FM stations in the US, most of that is inconsequential because it was too localised - tiny stations broadcasting line-of-sight transmissions to a limited audience. Here in the UK underground music was on national radio (albeit late at night but that's the only time this knowledgeable record-buying youth would listen to it anyway) with programmes such as The Perfumed Garden and Top Gear playing the kind of music that wouldn't get broadcast on daytime programming but was widely reported in all the weekly music papers. While a teenager growing up in the sticks would be unable to see their favourite underground band playing live in The Marquee or The Roundhouse in London, they could hear them on the radio and read about them in the music press and thus buy their albums in Woolworths and Our Price.
This is true. It was not the hippies living on the streets of the East Village and crashing in "crash pads" who were buying the record albums. Where would they have kept them. As the who so aptly put it they were "air conditioned gypsies". It was the rich kids from Long Island who had the bucks to buy and the bedrooms to keep albums. Concerts were another thing altogether. The "wastrel" hippies could always scrape together a couple of bucks to stand in line at the Fillmore East with the rich kids from Long Island and get in an see some top notch music. So the "wastrel" hippies did have quite a bit of influence on the music scene in America. I know because I was there and vaguely remember it.
That's interesting additional information Steven, and of course that is true, especially at free festivals where the "wastrels" only had to worry about getting the cash for their next fix (joke! ). At all the ticketed open-air festivals I've ever attended the hippies (and latterly, travellers & crusties) who could not afford a ticket would create a sort of vicus community outside the fenced-off festival where they'd stage their own free version of the festival with bands like Hawkwind playing from a flatbed truck - even the counterculture had a counterculture as observed in the linked article from the underground newspaper International Times, illustrated by the quote: "performing to a motley collection of drug-crazed idiot dancers, anarchists and Hells Angels " [sic].
However, how much influence those hippies had on the scene is peripheral in some degrees and germane in others because they defined the image and attitude of the acid-fuelled unwashed, psychedelic, peace and love, hippy scene but that was exploited and commercialised for a wholly different audience who only really experienced the hippy ideology vicariously through listening to the music and aping the tie-dyed fashions. The vast majority of music fans in the sixties were not stoned out of their gourds on psychedelic hallucinogens but that's not to say they weren't as pissed as newts on cheap alcohol. Those not-quite 'straights' but not really hippies would eschew acid and mescaline for beer and the occasional toke, bought all the psychedelic freak out albums we know so well and brought a level of success to the bands that endless touring never could.
It is this sanitised, generally non-political, post-hippy audience, who morphed into the post-hippy Freak Scene of the (very) late sixties and early seventies [related to, but not to be confused with, the Freaks of the mid-sixties], that popularised psychedelic pop and rock. By then (post 1968) the hippy movement was dead and buried (or if not wholly dead then it certainly smelt that way ) and hippy strongholds like Haight-Ashbury were sliding into decline while others such as New York's East Village and London's Ladbroke Grove continued to thrive as the counterculture underground scene adapted to the change.
To carry on The Who-isms, and being (at a guess) 5 or so years younger than you and Steve (and probably Doug), I'm talking about my g-generation, because in music (specifically back then) a five year age-gap is a chasm with many bridges - Sgt Pepper was a cornerstone album that happened during your youth whereas for me it was the foundation stone laid at the start of it.
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
Posted: May 16 2017 at 04:16
Dean wrote:
timothy leary wrote:
dean wrote:
There is a hell of a lot of tosh written about the Sixties, none of it particularly accurate and most of it exaggeration and hearsay. The adage "if you can remember the sixties, you weren't there" (or paraphrases thereof) being the biggest fib of all - if you were there and can't remember them then your testimony is questionable at best. The vast majority of the record buying youth were not hippies or freaks (those wastrels were hardly likely to be buying records anyway), they were normal folk who either went to school clutching copies of Record Mirror and The New Musical Express or had regular day jobs so they could earn money to spend in record shops and fashionable boutiques, and attend gigs in evenings and weekend. [There was a lot more to the gig scene back then than just the big-name venues and festivals that get remembered now]. Those are the youth who bought Sgt. Pepper, and they are the record-buying public that made those 'underground' albums popular. Can they remember the Sixties? Of course they bloody can. Did they recognise Sgt. Pepper as something special? Of course they bloody did. What we can say about them with a fair degree of accuracy is, like us die-hard prog fans today, they were incredibly knowledgeable of the music scene at the time. They read the weekly music papers and magazines from cover-to-cover because that was all there was, copies of each publication would get passed around common rooms, staff canteens and youth clubs. And they listened to the radio. While a lot of hot air and noise is made about FM stations in the US, most of that is inconsequential because it was too localised - tiny stations broadcasting line-of-sight transmissions to a limited audience. Here in the UK underground music was on national radio (albeit late at night but that's the only time this knowledgeable record-buying youth would listen to it anyway) with programmes such as The Perfumed Garden and Top Gear playing the kind of music that wouldn't get broadcast on daytime programming but was widely reported in all the weekly music papers. While a teenager growing up in the sticks would be unable to see their favourite underground band playing live in The Marquee or The Roundhouse in London, they could hear them on the radio and read about them in the music press and thus buy their albums in Woolworths and Our Price.
This is true. It was not the hippies living on the streets of the East Village and crashing in "crash pads" who were buying the record albums. Where would they have kept them. As the who so aptly put it they were "air conditioned gypsies". It was the rich kids from Long Island who had the bucks to buy and the bedrooms to keep albums. Concerts were another thing altogether. The "wastrel" hippies could always scrape together a couple of bucks to stand in line at the Fillmore East with the rich kids from Long Island and get in an see some top notch music. So the "wastrel" hippies did have quite a bit of influence on the music scene in America. I know because I was there and vaguely remember it.
That's interesting additional information Steven, and of course that is true, especially at free festivals where the "wastrels" only had to worry about getting the cash for their next fix (joke! ). At all the ticketed open-air festivals I've ever attended the hippies (and latterly, travellers & crusties) who could not afford a ticket would create a sort of vicus community outside the fenced-off festival where they'd stage their own free version of the festival with bands like Hawkwind playing from a flatbed truck - even the counterculture had a counterculture as observed in the linked article from the underground newspaper International Times, illustrated by the quote: "performing to a motley collection of drug-crazed idiot dancers, anarchists and Hells Angels " [sic].
However, how much influence those hippies had on the scene is peripheral in some degrees and germane in others because they defined the image and attitude of the acid-fuelled unwashed, psychedelic, peace and love, hippy scene but that was exploited and commercialised for a wholly different audience who only really experienced the hippy ideology vicariously through listening to the music and aping the tie-dyed fashions. The vast majority of music fans in the sixties were not stoned out of their gourds on psychedelic hallucinogens but that's not to say they weren't as pissed as newts on cheap alcohol. Those not-quite 'straights' but not really hippies would eschew acid and mescaline for beer and the occasional toke, bought all the psychedelic freak out albums we know so well and brought a level of success to the bands that endless touring never could.
It is this sanitised, generally non-political, post-hippy audience, who morphed into the post-hippy Freak Scene of the (very) late sixties and early seventies [related to, but not to be confused with, the Freaks of the mid-sixties], that popularised psychedelic pop and rock. By then (post 1968) the hippy movement was dead and buried (or if not wholly dead then it certainly smelt that way ) and hippy strongholds like Haight-Ashbury were sliding into decline while others such as New York's East Village and London's Ladbroke Grove continued to thrive as the counterculture underground scene adapted to the change.
To carry on The Who-isms, and being (at a guess) 5 or so years younger than you and Steve (and probably Doug), I'm talking about my g-generation, because in music (specifically back then) a five year age-gap is a chasm with many bridges - Sgt Pepper was a cornerstone album that happened during your youth whereas for me it was the foundation stone laid at the start of it.
The whole myth and the accompanying warped bigoted stereotypes of the hippie culture is mostly that. A myth. Most Americans were either in college to avoid the draft or actually drafted for the war, while a very tiny group ran off to Canada. The tune in, turn on and drop out crowd was a small part of the population that was intimately aligned with the anti war/anti draft movement. You know, the 4 people shot in Ohio in 1970 (way after the hippie scene was supposed to be dead, another myth) by the American National Guard while they protested the insane, illegal and immoral war in Vietnam. Shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. But why be concerned, even 45 years later. After all, they were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?
Edit: Btw, it was psychedelic rock that vanished in 1968, not hippies.
Edited by SteveG - May 16 2017 at 04:32
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: May 16 2017 at 04:55
SteveG wrote:
The whole myth and the accompanying warped bigoted stereotypes of the hippie culture is mostly that. A myth. Most Americans were either in college to avoid the draft or actually drafted for the war, while a very tiny group ran off to Canada. The tune in, turn on and drop out crowd was a small part of the population that was intimately aligned with the anti war/anti draft movement. You know, the 4 people shot in Ohio in 1970 (way after the hippie scene was supposed to be dead, another myth) by the American National Guard while they protested the insane, illegal and immoral war in Vietnam. Shot and killed after placing flowers in the gun barrels of the Guardsmen's riffles. But why be concerned, even 45 years later. After all, they were only mimicking useless wastrels and embraced their hippy values. You know, the people that supposedly cared little about and contributed nothing to society. Right?
Edit: Btw, it was psychedelic rock that vanished in 1968, not hippies.
And the myth continues - the four people murdered in the Kent State shootings were students not hippies. The hippy movement brought the anti-war message to the fore but it didn't own the monopoly on it. The Student unrest that occurred in the late sixties and early seventies was not a part of the hippy movement but in some ways was a reaction to the indifference of society as a whole to the message it preached. Sure there is correlation, but we should be wary of drawing direct conclusions from that because what those students were protesting about in America wasn't the same as they were protesting about in Paris and Munich.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.196 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.