From a pop songwriting standpoint, I'd argue that one great challenge of the '60s was merging traditional western song craft with "pure" rock n roll (read Chuck Berry, for short). Early Rock n Roll almost entirely eliminated the single most essential element of Western music (harmony) and featured only rhythmic drive and melodic energy. The result was a very idiosynchratic art form with limited commercial potential for mass audiences.
You can make a fair case that Brian Wilson - more than anyone else - pioneered the fusion of then new rock n roll with the more traditional (and captivating) harmonies that most people want in their music. Chuck Berry famously sued them for appropriating his songs and won. Yet, a lot of folks who hear Chuck Berry as pure Rock n Roll would describe The Beach Boys as pure pop. Therein, IMO, lies the great genius of Brian Wilson.
This (per their own telling) hybridization spurred Lennon/Macca and either created the greatest band in Rock n Roll or hopelessly diluted Rock n Roll, depending on your personal point of view. Either way, without The Beach Boys, there are no Beatles.
As a purely separate matter, Brian Wilson has IMO produced some of the simplest, most beautiful pop music (see God Only Knows, etc) and some of the most intricately arranged, bizarrely instrumented pop/rock hybrids (see Good Vibrations) of the last fifty years. None of this means that you need to like The Beach Boys, but I hope it goes some way towards explaining why some folks (like me) both love their music and hold them in such high esteem.
|
Nice post bdp,
I discovered all of that Smile sessions material only with/after the relatively recent Smile album release and I agree with your take. It feels like a view into a warped mind, sometimes dark, sometimes child-like, always much more interesting than most pop music. I wouldn't have made it into your club back in the day, but I'm with you now.
|
Peter Green was another sad LSD casualty and Jeremy Spencer may have been, as well. |
IMO, the greatest (and certainly one of the most celebrated) novel(s) of the last century (Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow") was written by an author who (by his own admission) used LSD extensively during its creation. Beyond that, the book is specifically revered for Pynchon's prose: It is both stunning in its ingenuity and also widely celebrated largely for its acid inspired, fever dream imagery.
LSD took a terrible toll on a lot of people, but (like a lot of other drugs) it's also been a part of the creative process for many artists. Look, It's fine to reject drug use as dangerous. It is dangerous. I also understand the desire to avoid glamorizing drug use. However, I'm just not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Great art produced while under the influence of drugs is still great art. However, unpleasant or disturbing the implications of that truth may be. |
Bdp,
"Gravity's Rainbow" is a great, great novel IMO, but be advised...
It's +/- 1200 pages long and can be a tough slog if you aren't familiar with Pynchon's MO. It might be a bit akin to reading "Finnegan's Wake" as your first shot at James Joyce.
I read the Pynchon novels more or less in chronological order, which is a good way to ease into his universe. However, the two preceding novels. "V" and "Crying of Lot 49" are quite not in the same league. "Lot 49" is short and great fun, tho, so I might start there, anyway.
Critics differ greatly on ranking the Pynchon novels (other than "Rainbow", which AFAIK is pretty much universally admired). I really love "Against The Day" but it's another very long, very complex way to start that Pynchon journey. You could also start with "Inherent Vice" (which was recently made into a movie by PT Anderson, where one of my favorite filmmakers meets my favorite novelist). It's an easier read and, even if it never reaches the heights of Pynchon's best stuff, it wouldn't be a bad place to start.
Even if it is sometimes a bit drug addled, the Pynchon novels are definitely my absolute favorite fiction in the world, so - Enjoy the trip! (pardon the pun). |
No one is embracing abuse.
That is different entirely from embracing the art produced by a drug abuser.
This discussion has next to nothing to do with money.
Some folks here are more empathetic than scornful.
|
Your most recent post just popped up. It's different in tone than some of previous posts. Please ignore my previous post as you've already addressed it. I think I get your point, now, but maybe we just hear this particular music differently.
"Good Vibrations" came out of the Pet Sound sessions and it's a pretty bizarre piece of music - the expected guitar solo is played on electro-theremin. I've always seen the subsequent direction of Brian Wilson's music as a continuation of that artistic arc. "Vibrations" was a hit, but it was also a move towards a much less commercially reliable way of producing music. If you hear Smile as a symptom of drug abuse and believe that it's celebrated for that reason, than I understand your reaction. I just don't hear the music that way.
|
213
Unless you are arguing that we must bear the responsibility for the moral consequences for all of our consumption decisions and their ethical implicarions, you are mistaken. Accepting the fruit of the abuse isn't endorsing the abuse.
BTW, It IS possible to endorse the abuse - see Timothy Leary and "Turn on, Tune in, and Drop out". I am NOT suggesting that.
As Minkwelder notes, the history of musicians and drug abuse is long and varied. A ton of highly regarded jazz musicians of the '50s used booze, pot and/or heroin. Add LSD and try to find a significant rock musician who didn't abuse one or more of those drugs during the '60s. Toss in cocaine and quaaludes and you've covered most of the seventies. Mix in some ecstasy and....
....you our get the picture.
So, if you ARE insisting that we must examine those ethical implications, then I trust that you consume none of that music. And none of the following:
I trust that you buy no Chinese made goods, lest you implicitly endorse the Chinese government's abuse of intellectual property rights, etc. I assume that you don't enjoy any running water in your home, because that was developed by the Romans, and I'm sure that you do not champion feeding Christians to Lions. You surely don't listen to the blues, so that there's no possible implicit endorsement of slavery. I'm certain that you've never owned a Volkswagen product, purchased Bayer aspirin, etc. This list gets long in a hurry.
If you do none of the above, you're an admirable man indeed. More principled than I am. However, if you have done any of the above...... |
Bdp,
You ask an interesting question. Here's another one:. What might The Beatles have wrought had they heard it? They were still paying attention to Mr Wilson (and taking inspiration from him). And....Given the influence of The Beatles, how might that never made record have rippled thru the pop music world? I think it's actually a pretty interesting alternate universe scenario. Then again, that's just me. |
