Biggest Debate in Rock N Roll History ?

Neapolitan · 07-31-2012, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joy_circumcision

Just a question - are the sales of Sgt Pepper including CD and vinyl reissues? Because if so, The Beatles got to tap into the same global market Shania Twain did PLUS have twenty-five years or so before that global market to get a nice head start, and she still out-sold them. But if it just includes like initial release or a certain like statute of limitations on what counts then I can buy your argument fine.

Well I really don't know, I wasn't the one compiling the statical information for the site that Wiki sited. I imagine it includes all sales for all formats - LPs CCs CDs. Well if you want to compare two albums 30 years apart isn't that in favour of The Beatles that we are even having that discussion? And numbers don't bother me the fact that cheap throw-away pop music is gobbled up by masses only reinforces my opinion that the more obscure music is the better it sounds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joy_circumcision

Also, just a joke: I think you'd want to convert a thousand pounds per annum circa 17th century into today's pound unless you were trying to travel from 17th century England to modern France or Germany

.

I was trying to make apples to oranges comparison. Sgt Pepper was an album for the sake of an album - a stand alone identity supported by and The Beatles' reputation and the music on the album, it wasn't released and than supported by a worldwide tour where the band/artist also made their money by selling T shirts & CDs, which would make it more of a business venture than art for art sake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joy_circumcision

LP format was actually never that big a deal to those communities until it became the norm for music listening and they had to change with the times. I can't remember what article I read on it, but basically most of the classical community never caught on until CDs, but jazz surely had a nice little LP takeoff when LPs did become the standard music-buying format.

So I guess people didn't buy albums from Alantic Records to listen to Jazz because it wasn't "a big deal." Ahmet Ertegün was just wasting his time and money setting up a record company - maybe he should've went into shipping like Aristotelis Onasis.

joy_circumcision · 08-01-2012, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

So I guess people didn't buy albums from Alantic Records to listen to Jazz because it wasn't "a big deal." Ahmet Ertegün was just wasting his time and money setting up a record company - maybe he should've went into shipping like Aristotelis Onasis.

I'll quote wiki to support that that record company wasn't a "big deal" until the vinyl industry as a whole had mainstream success and became a "big deal." It's also unfair to jump down my throat with one example when that example is the one that blazed the trail of popularizing the format. It's like saying AOR was a big deal around 1967 and downplaying Sgt. Pepper's importance with that statement when really it's a reverse causality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Atlantic played a major role in popularising the new genre that Jerry Wexler dubbed rhythm & blues and it profited handsomely from this. The market for these records exploded during late 1953 and early 1954, as more and more R&B hits crossed over to the mainstream (i.e. white) audience.

Neapolitan · 08-01-2012, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joy_circumcision

I'll quote wiki to support that that record company wasn't a "big deal" until the vinyl industry as a whole had mainstream success and became a "big deal." It's also unfair to jump down my throat with one example when that example is the one that blazed the trail of popularizing the format. It's like saying AOR was a big deal around 1967 and downplaying Sgt. Pepper's importance with that statement when really it's a reverse causality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Atlantic played a major role in popularising the new genre that Jerry Wexler dubbed rhythm & blues and it profited handsomely from this. The market for these records exploded during late 1953 and early 1954, as more and more R&B hits crossed over to the mainstream (i.e. white) audience.

The Jazz era spans a long time & course there was a time in it's early history where the LP wasn't around, or important. Sgt Pepper was release in '67 that's 13/14 years after "The market for these records exploded during late 1953 and early 1954." When it says "records" that probably means both 45s and LPs, but it only shows there was a market for LPs before Sgt Pepper.

joy_circumcision · 08-01-2012, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

The Jazz era spans a long time & course there was a time in it's early history where the LP wasn't around, or important. Sgt Pepper was release in '67 that's 13/14 years after "The market for these records exploded during late 1953 and early 1954." When it says "records" that probably means both 45s and LPs, but it only shows there was a market for LPs before Sgt Pepper.

I'm going to be honest and say that I literally have no idea what we're even arguing about at this point and that my original post that illicited more responses was just a construction to serve as the vehicle for my "pounds to euros" joke since I was dumb and didn't get your comparison, so I suppose we'll agree to either agree or disagree, whichever one we're doing once I re-read what we've been talking about.

Neapolitan · 08-02-2012, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joy_circumcision

I'm going to be honest and say that I literally have no idea what we're even arguing about at this point and that my original post that illicited more responses was just a construction to serve as the vehicle for my "pounds to euros" joke since I was dumb and didn't get your comparison, so I suppose we'll agree to either agree or disagree, whichever one we're doing once I re-read what we've been talking about.

This what I thought we were arguing: Can the historical cultural importance and artistic value of Sgt Pepper (by The Beatles) be undermined by the sales performance of an artist thiry years after it's release?

TheBig3 · 08-12-2012, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger ?

I'm convinced if Big 3, Norg , Flying Pig & Neapolitan ever got involved in a debate the universe would implode.

Take heart, friend. I think the Knight of Neap is so irreverent that I can't honestly debate...it? I don't even know what the hell he is. Nice guy. Just robotic.

Neapolitan · 08-14-2012, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

Take heart, friend. I think the Knight of Neap is so irreverent that I can't honestly debate...it? I don't even know what the hell he is. Nice guy. Just robotic.

"so irreverent...Nice guy. Just robotic." You sound like Fry describing Bender.

galt54 · 08-31-2024, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vertigo

Can't we get through a week without someone mentioning the bloody Beatles!!!?

In my humble opinion the Beatles were *objectively* the best popular music band ever that I am aware of (of course, since I am not omniscient it is possible that there is/was some other still better band which I have not discovered yet).

The main reason for which I evaluate the Beatles as being "objectively" the best is the almost self-evident fact that they (mainly Lennon and McCartney that is) were the world champions of all time (in *popular* music) of coming up with original top-of-the-line melodies. In my view the melody is the most important element of a song or piece of music by far.