- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
08 Apr 11
Originally posted by SuzianneNot really, for that one. Almost all Pepper tracks work just fine by themselves. They gain something from being heard together, but at least Lucy, Sixty-Four, Rita and Day in the Life are better songs than most bands have written, all on their own. Pepper itself and Friends belong together, but as a combo don't necessarily need the rest of the album either. And the rest, well, good songs, not quite as good as the above perhaps, but they still survive as songs. None of them are dependent on the rest, even if they do gain from the context.
From what I understand, these are also called "concept albums", one of the first being Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
Richard
08 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Shallow BlueWell, a lot of "concept album" songs do stand on their own just fine. Most of the albums by Alan Parsons Project, for example, are "concept albums" and yet, there have been many good songs out of the bunch. For example, I, Robot had "I Wouldn't Want to be Like You" and "Breakdown" as well as a successful cover of "Don't Let it Show" by Pat Benatar. Eye in the Sky had the title piece, which played well over the radio, as well as its intro piece, "Sirius", played in basketball arenas all over the country (my Phoenix Suns have used it for years).
Not really, for that one. Almost all Pepper tracks work just fine by themselves. They gain something from being heard together, but at least Lucy, Sixty-Four, Rita and Day in the Life are better songs than most bands have written, all on their own. Pepper itself and Friends belong together, but as a combo don't necessarily need the rest of the album eit ...[text shortened]... ongs. None of them are dependent on the rest, even if they do gain from the context.
Richard
To say that the songs on "concept albums" cannot stand alone is clearly incorrect, but the wealth of the "concept album", by definition, comes from the way the songs work together as a whole, not that they "need" each other to be any good. Given this definition, I'd say SPLHCB is indeed a "concept album" (and one of the first, indeed an argument could be made for it being the first (and therefore, perhaps not the "best" )).
08 Apr 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitBut Smile was the concept album they would have made if Brian Wilson hadn't spent all that time in his sand-pit being bonkers, and is considerably better as a 'whole album' than track-by-track.
Sgt Pepper's was the Beatles rebuttal to the Beach Boys - Pet Sounds.
Pet Sounds was not a "concept album" but rather Brian Wilson's sound experimentation. The Beatles were awed by it.
Sgt. Pepper's incorporated many new sound techniques and wove them through the album. This, in turn, inspired many that followed to utilze similar strategies.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
09 Apr 11
Originally posted by SuzianneHowever, the OP's question was about albums that need to be listened to together, not just about songs which merely work somewhat better together than on their own. As an answer to that question, I still think that Sgt. Pepper very much does not hold water.
To say that the songs on "concept albums" cannot stand alone is clearly incorrect, but the wealth of the "concept album", by definition, comes from the way the songs work together as a whole, not that they "need" each other to be any good. Given this definition, I'd say SPLHCB is indeed a "concept album" (and one of the first, indeed an argument could be made for it being the first (and therefore, perhaps not the "best" )).
Richard