1967 - Best year for debut albums ever?

1800iareyay wrote: [QUOTE=Starless]There seems to be an old debate rearing its ugly mush about pre & post 1989 (why 1989?) music twixt Pnoom and Walter. I have to say i'm with Walter on this one. By '89 almost everything had already been done, and anything new, particularly in prog, was nearly all a rehash of old ideas. There must be some exceptions, but I can't think of any offhand. If all post '89 music disappeared tomorrow, I would probably lose a third of my collection, but 75% of the real classics would still be there!   I thought I'd do a little research. Here in the UK respected broadsheet The Guardian published a list of, as they called it, "50 albums that changed the world"   http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1821231,00.html   Now, I don't know how the list was arrived at and I don't agree with all the choices, and there are some glaring omissions, and of course it has a UK bias. However of the 50 listed, only 11 are 1989 or later.

How about:

BroSpence wrote: Logan wrote: And Elmer Gantry's Velvet Opera - s/tParson Sound - s/t (okay, the only album by Parson Sound but a terrific album)H.P. Lovecraft -s/tThe Incredible String Band - The 5000 Spirits or the Layers of the OnionNiemen Czeslaw - Dziwny Jest...Leonard Cohen - Songs of Leonard Cohen That Cohen came out in '68, and the ISB album is not their debut.

"Twas silly of me to forget ISB's eponymous debut, but are you sure about Cohen's album?  I've read that it was originally released by Columbia around Christmas of '67.

Starless wrote: There seems to be an old debate rearing its ugly mush about pre & post 1989 (why 1989?) music twixt Pnoom and Walter. I have to say i'm with Walter on this one. By '89 almost everything had already been done, and anything new, particularly in prog, was nearly all a rehash of old ideas. There must be some exceptions, but I can't think of any offhand. If all post '89 music disappeared tomorrow, I would probably lose a third of my collection, but 75% of the real classics would still be there!   I thought I'd do a little research. Here in the UK respected broadsheet The Guardian published a list of, as they called it, "50 albums that changed the world"   http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1821231,00.html   Now, I don't know how the list was arrived at and I don't agree with all the choices, and there are some glaring omissions, and of course it has a UK bias. However of the 50 listed, only 11 are 1989 or later.   QED!

But of course only a few would be from the last 17 years (at the time of that poll). Frankly I'm surprised that 11 made it on. Music stopped being really innovative around the late 60s/early 70s because everything was explored. Now, that doesn't mean that newer bands don't sound fresh (the punk explosion, hip-hop, grunge, thrash metal), but an album that changes the world must be culture shifting in some way, which is less likely to happen when the Velvet Underground took rock to its furthest reaches (as well as SOME prog, but let's face it: the vast majority found a sound and stuck with it until they went pop).

So the US got the cut tracks and the UK got the hit singles for convenience?

This last sentence threw me off. You're referring to the remastered edition here, I see. Now it makes sense.

1800iareyay wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: There's no such thing. Only aimless twiddle-twaddle made by nobodies. Now, the real issue is... do fans prefer the UK or the US version of "Are You Experienced?" The US. I don't normally go for cutting out tunes in favor of singles that are readily available on any greatest hits set (I VASTLY prefer the UK versions of The Clash and The Stones' Aftermath). But didn't the remasters put all the tracks that weren't available on each version? So the US got the cut tracks and the UK got the hit singles for convenience?

Actually, the UK version came out first. 'Twas the US version that received the hit singles.

But yeah, the remasters do have all the tunes, and then some.


Edited by WalterDigsTunes - June 24 2008 at 17:09

WalterDigsTunes wrote: There's no such thing. Only aimless twiddle-twaddle made by nobodies. Now, the real issue is... do fans prefer the UK or the US version of "Are You Experienced?"

The US. I don't normally go for cutting out tunes in favor of singles that are readily available on any greatest hits set (I VASTLY prefer the UK versions of The Clash and The Stones' Aftermath). But didn't the remasters put all the tracks that weren't available on each version? So the US got the cut tracks and the UK got the hit singles for convenience?

There's no such thing. Only aimless twiddle-twaddle made by nobodies.

Now, the real issue is... do fans prefer the UK or the US version of "Are You Experienced?"

Great call, Starless.  An unbeatable year, as far as I'm concerned. What would life be like without "Are You Experienced?" or "The Velvet Underground and Nico"?

Just thought of one I missed: