>Legend has it that it took 700 hours of studio recording to finish the album. One can only imagine what many other less fortunate bands could have accomplished in a recording studio with 700 hours at their disposal. Although Sgt. Pepper was assembled with the intent to create a revolutionary work of art, if one dares take away the hundreds of hours spent refining the product, not much remains that cannot be heard on Revolver: Oriental touches here and there, some psychedelic extravaganzas, a couple of arrangements in classical style. Were one to skim off a few layers of studio production, only pop melodies would remain, melodies not much different from those that had climbed the charts ten years before. Yet it was the first Beatles album to be released in long playing version all over the world. None of its songs were released as singles.
How exactly can you "take away" the touches of refinement? How do you "skim off" layers of studio production? Could you not do this with any music and get the same result? Yes, naturally "only pop melodies" remain if you isolate them as an element. But I don't get his rationale for just brushing away sounds just because he feels like it. What is he trying to say here?
He's always shown he has absolutely no ear for composition. He's not seeing the brilliance of Sgt. Pepper's and the things that were on Sgt. Pepper's that weren't in Revolver. To take away the layers of studio production, as he puts it, would still reveal the crowning achievement of The Beatles which are complex harmonies, thorough development, a brilliance of gesture and rhythm, modulation, modality, the whole lot. The modulation in whole steps in Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite and the sudden switch in rhythm at specific moments in the song will remain there if you take away the studio arrangements.
He's frankly just a contrarian and the fact that he claims Duke Ellington and John Coltrane never sold well is more than proof of that. A Love Supreme sold upwards of half a million copies.
Aaron Ross
They spent 700 studio hours making a garbage fucking album lmao
makes no sense. the album is what it is. the refinement production and touches is what makes a lot of tracks. imagine the benefit of mr kite without all the fair ground instruments and shit. imagine lucy in the sky without psychedelia. imagine a day in the life without the orchestra avant garde transitions.
Luis Ortiz
Benefit of Mr. Kite still works. Lucy still works. A Day in the Life still works. They were clever enough that the melodies themselves communicate that sense (even though the choice of tone color, gesture, instrumentation all matters). The brilliance of A Day in the Life is the long crescendo - the demos does not have the orchestras, and that long period of build up has the piano underneath as a marker of time and helping the entire song move to its B section (Paul's verse) which it does so with the tension still working in a way that's actually amusing. You can remove the arrangements but the form and strength of the melody and composition still remains.
Oliver Davis
>actually thinking the beatles are in any way unique for pop music
Christian Walker
He's saying if you take away the gimmicks it's not really great or revolutionary like people say it is. I understand that autistics have trouble deciphering abstract language but please at least try. Sgt Peppers is deeply flawed because like every Beatles album it contains a ton of garbage filler. >Getting better >Fixing a hole >Leaving home >Arguably Mr kite >Within you without you >Lovely rita All forgettable trash.
Michael James
I actually agree with him that this album isn’t that special. Maybe I’m in the minority, but I kinda like old Beatles more than new Beatles. Just fun pop shit, no wannabe art frills
That said, rubber soul is their best album.
Cameron Hill
They're all great songs, dude. That's actually the personal issue.
Liam Ramirez
They're retard-simple ditties with no meaning. There's no way that any of those songs took more than a half hour to write.
Levi Roberts
>actually thinks they aren't
Brandon Sanders
Taylor Swift put it best: "People throw rocks at things that shine."
Kevin Sanchez
Lovely Rita, Fixing A Hole, Getting Better, She's Leaving Home, Within You Without You - they all almost certainly did take a decently long period of gestation. You don't come up with the harmonies in Fixing A Hole in half an hour; nor with the arrangement of Getting Better.
Sebastian Morales
>They're good songs if you account for all the production gimmicks! Thanks for proving my point.
Ryder Edwards
Brushing away most of the production as "gimmicks" is exactly what OP is criticizing.
>if you account for all the production gimmicks Arrangement is not a production gimmick, jackass. Production gimmicks are the effects on Lennon's voice in A Day in the Life and Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds; the crowd sounds in Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. The harmony in Fixing A Hole almost definitely is not a production gimmick because it'd be maintained if you were doing a version with nothing but yourself and a piano.
Joseph Hall
Who hurt you?
Daniel Brooks
Of course I am, I expected actual discussion instead of "I disagree". OP is criticizing Scaruffi for "brushing away sounds just because he feels like it". He's complaining that Scaruffi is writing off an entire aspect of the album as pointless despite putting no effort to justify it. He didn't use the word "gimmick" but it's still the same idea.
So why did you make this post? Youre acting like I didn't realize what OP was saying.
John Martinez
Because you didn't realize what OP was saying. You reiterated and agreed with exactly what OP was criticizing without adding anything to it, claimed that OP didn't understand the text despite him directly addressing it and you told me "I disagree" when I pointed that out. How are you not following this?
I agree with Scaruffi. OP doesn't. Where are you getting lost?
John Brown
I never claimed otherwise.
Isaac Campbell
NIGGER WHAT YOU JUST DID
Robert Cox
Are you legitimately retarded? Did you miss the part where I explicitly said you agreed with something OP was criticizing? Do you not read the posts you're replying to? I'll just assume you're baiting at this point.
You've been flip flopping your point on every other post so I think really this is your fault.
Thomas Carter
the left ear instruments =/= right ear instruments kind of production (whatever thats called) makes it unlistenable to me
Juan Gonzalez
>it's your fault I'm retarded I was consistent with my points the whole thread. I never claimed you were agreeing with OP. You confused yourself and can't come to terms with the fact that you confused yourself. It's not bad enough being retarded, you're also stubborn.
I'm just staying consistent in my argument the best I can. You haven't made any criticisms thusfar. Unless you're actually OP and you're samefagging hard because my post made you mad.
Andrew Barnes
Pretty much that he just wasn't that impressed with the artsy touches. His whole beatles essay has the right underlying idea but lots of exaggerated points and details.
Jaxon Peterson
The Beatles didn't have involvement in their stereo albums until the white album (and even that had most of the tracks initially mixed in mono). All Beatles albums before the white album (and some people say including the white album) should be listened to in mono
Nicholas Ross
You really are legitimately retarded, aren't you? The very first post I made, the one replying to you, the one that messed up your head so badly, was pointing out that your one and only criticism of Sgt. Peppers (despite the useless "these are filler my opinion is fact" following it), the one Scaruffi made, the one you had to '''''clarify''''' to OP, was actually directly addressed in the OP. I don't understand what went wrong in your life that even after this back and forth you couldn't put two and two together, but here we are.
It's an atonal crescendo gesture at the end of a movement leading to a B section that is reprised at the end of the work. It's late romantic if anything. The shape of the work is AA'A''BA'', or ABA if you may.
William Jones
So again, it’s not “avant-garde”. Also I think you’re confused on the meaning of atonal.
Noah Russell
atonal: organized without reference to key or tonal center
Atonal? Yes. Avant-garde? Depends. Avant-garde just implies that it introduces new or experimental ideas.
Charles Powell
At its time it was about as Avant Garde as popular music got. Don't be a retard
Christopher Carter
It ends on the e chord, which is the tonic center of the middle section. Soooo it’s not atonal. Also a crescendo atonal or not isn’t and new or experimental idea, thus it isn’t avant garde. Well if you want to look at pop music in a bubble than maybe. But I’m not going to.
Ryan Williams
Yeah I wouldn't go as far as calling it avant garde, but you can't argue that the ideas on that song and on that album in general weren't "experimental" for the time, especially when put into a pop context
Brody Clark
send him an email.
Liam Morgan
I wasn't saying it was avantgarde, hell, I said it was late romantic.
