Puerile Politicization of Pop

I skimmed it; it's not good. The evidence seems tailored to the conclusion rather than the other way around. The author likely has some meritorious underlying points re: patriarchial society, but they're not put to good use here.

"[The album] helped cement this notion that music for girls is silly and music for men is artistically significant."

The above isn't a new phenomenon. Male painters and authors are more universally revered than female, for instance. (Why else have pen names masquerading as men?) The author could argue that the album caused those existing societal forces to train their eyes on music more, but I don't see how a male artist advantage wasn't already the case in 1960s America.

 

The image of Marvey in disco clothes is both funny and disturbing for some reason

 

This is a great article on Salon

http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/05/the-fall-of-saloncom-004551

How they slowly became a pure click-bait site to try & become profitable & compete with the likes of HuffingtonPost.
Every original & respectable editor quit over the years due to this.

Here is a quote from one of the founders of Salon
“Sadly, Salon doesn’t really exist anymore,” wrote Laura Miller, one of Salon’s founding editors who left the site for Slate last fall. “The name is still being used, but the real Salon is gone.”

 

I was gonna write "pics or it didn't happen"...

 

I don't get using Pepper's to make the point that teenybopper music hasn't been treated as seriously as other male dominated music. If she thinks that Pepper's changed the Beatles into a male fan base, she obviously was not present in 1967. Or in 1976 when I saw McCartney in concert. Surrounded by screaming grown women. Only could see one other male near me. About 50 yards away. She also seems unaware that Sgt. Peppers was not universally acclaimed at the time of it's release. The NY Times among others panned it. The whole Pepper's concept was to allow the band to do whatever they wanted in the studio without concern if it was a "Beatles" sounding song. Otherwise they might have left Within You Without You out.
Not a particularly well written article. I give it a C- .

BTW-The new re-mix is very good. IMHO. Some will look at the DR and dismiss it without listening. I almost did. Would have been a mistake.

 

Playing it now, to celebrate the replacement tubes arriving. I just stumbled over this thread, oddly. Sounds good- seems like the mix owes a lot more to the revered mono version. Right now, it's coming from Tidal, I can see it being a "must buy". Really enjoying how clean and tangible the bass and percussion is, too.

Also, yes, you're right. They had unlimited budget. They had studio 2 at Abbey Road to themselves. It wasn't all "Twist And Shout", they were experimenting. The whole business of using the desk as an instrument odd tricks with bits of tape were still novel at the time. Those other notorious experimental 60s bastards, Pink Floyd, were recording Piper At The Gates Of Dawn at Abbey Road, too. There's some obvious cross-fertilisation that happened there (and PF sat in on the recording of "Lovely Rita", for example). It's not an album of three minute radio friendly unit shifters as they didn't need to do that any more- they didn't need to make bank. They could make what they liked, simply to see what happened. It's probable that there was no bigger agenda there- sometimes it really is that straightforward.

That said, even though it's a lavish and experimental record, there are some absolutely killer tunes in there. Also, the new remix? It sounds a lot better than I expected. Given that Giles Martin is dead against heroic processing cleanups of the material, he must be telling the truth when he says that the masters were incredibly well-recorded. Really happy about that. He seems to have carefully walked the line between doing a modern stereo mix and not buggering about with the soul of the thing- which is impressive.

I'm sure we could all think of some classic albums that we wish existed in such a pristine master form.

 

A few teenybopper girl's albums that were released in 1967 prior to 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band':

Are You Experienced - The Jimi Hendrix Experience
Absolutely Free - The Mothers of Invention
The Doors - The Doors
The Velvet Underground & Nico - The Velvet Underground & Nico
The Grateful Dead - The Grateful Dead
Bob Dylan's Greatest Hits - Bob Dylan

 

We're Only In It For The Money



I don't mind that my parents beat me. It was the 1950s and that's what parents did. It was the times. Even after Women's Lib had grown into feminism the Dead sang We can share the women, we can share the wine, just to annoy those who said they were sexist. Which they probably were.

Women were "chicks." Many of them were only too happy to stay at home and cook the nut roast. In many ways, the hippy culture was very middle-class and conservative. Rice and veg replaced steak and chips; cannabis replaced beer. Same picture.

Don't know how all that managed to produce some of the most utterly amazing music ever. But it did. I've met people who wouldn't listen to Wagner because Hitler liked it; apparently, person to person, Beethoven was a real bastard.

Most pop music was (is? I don't know) cheap trivia. That's what it was meant to be. Top-of-the-Pops: music for mass consumption. Us middle-class stoned freaks with our rice and veg listened to something else. What snobs! And... yes, I still am!

Personally, though, I preferred the American stuff. I find Love's Forever Changes, with its meaningless meanderings, to be greatly superior, lyrics and music, to Sgt Pepper.

And if I could expand this post and think up a point that it proves, maybe someone would pay me for writing it!

 

Grace Slick was scornful. She said, "What rubbish: we didn't want to hold hands, we wanted to f**k!"

A sweet song indeed. It was just pop at the time, but still gave us immortal songs.

 

I stopped reading as soon as I saw the author was Amanda Marcotte. I already knew that it's about how whatever I like oppresses all women.

 

I wish she had told us earlier. I would have had a 50 year head start hating them. Shit, I never know who to turn my nose up at. Helpful stuff that.

 

Was rock and roll "the music of girls"? I wasn't alive in the 60s, but I feel like it was the music of a generation not a gender.

 

Isn't this the course most successful musicians make? Starting out, the record company is in control and you have quick-buck music for teenagers. Then as the artist gets more influence and popularity, they have a greater say about their direction and output. Not surprisingly, they ditch the gum-chewing teen fluff. I wonder how many grown men actually listen to the early tracks vs. the later tracks though.