From 1965 onwards, however, these additions were unnumbered. Previously, The Beatles’ overdubs had been given individual take numbers. Instead of essentially performing their songs live in the studio, they increasingly taped the rhythm tracks first, then overdubbed vocals and extra instruments onto the best takes. Maybe I’m a half-empty type.From this session onwards, The Beatles adopted a new method of recording. It doesn’t sound like the beginning of an era as much as the end of one. It doesn’t meet the degree of boldness to satisfy the claim made by OP. That being said, when I listen to Ticket To Ride, I hear a group insatiably yearning for progression while still succumbing to the confines of proven formulas of their past. Nuances found in gradual progressions of creative originality are too nebulous to fit the same paradigm as the mainstream, of course.Īs such, the entire debate at its core is whether any term or label that seeks to identify and group certain aspects of creativity is better served by being more exclusive in order to uphold the purity of its own definition, or is it better served being more inclusive to provide its definition greater flexibility, accessibility, and reach. As such, focusing on terms, labels, or defined eras only narrows down the discussion to the mainstream. We have this habit simply as a means of tracking the flow of creative influence.īut some artists are too original and ahead of the time that their work fails to be grouped under an umbrella term for simply being released far earlier than the term suggests, and correlations can go unrecognized. And even though I technically include myself as one, I agree with the notion that identifying psychedelic music through a modern revisionist lens does ultimately miss the point the OP is suggesting.Īlso, in a greater sense it challenges the value in retroactively placing any labels or groupings on past works of art. It was gradual in their catalog but not on a calendar.Īt first I thought your gripe was with OP’s post and then I interpreted your gripe to be more aimed at disarming the naysayers. Definitely it was very gradual in terms of their catalog, but their catalog went through changes at hyper speed given the rate of their output. This is well put and I agree with all these points. It was later when using these types of techniques would be given the moniker of psychedelic rock They were just looking for cool recording tricks they could do to spice up their music, whether that be adopting tricks used by other artists (like jazz musicians or Ravi Shankar) or employing the sensibilities of George Martin's classical music background, et. With 60 years of development of the psychedelic rock genre, people will go back with modern psychedelic rock taste/understanding/development and retroactively say something "isn't psychedelic rock" because it doesn't check all the boxes for things they believe make up a "modern" psychedelic rock song, not taking into consideration that The Beatles weren't checking boxes to make sure their music was "psychedelic" enough. Going on a tangent related to the subject, my gripe with questions like "is X Psychedelic?" is that, like prog rock, a lot of self proclaimed fans of the genre have this very narrow view of what songs fit in the genre. Strange to think that John's supposed dislike for his own voice and pursuit to make it sound different would help craft a genre of music. The stuff they would do with baroque pop, fuzztones, reversing recordings, layered harmonies, etc would all be things that would help form would be known as psychedelic rock. As such, it's hard to pinpoint a specific turning point because different techniques now seen as psychedelic were being employed at different times, and not all at once. The Beatles transition to psychedelia is definitely a gradual one, as they're one of its pioneers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |