Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V4 #257

[rfranger@ix.netcom.com (Russell Fields)]

Sughosh,
I didn't see Sartwell's comments about Sgt. Pepper so I just read your 
response to what he said.  Again, I'm not going to defend a guy whose 
views I haven't even read or have just heard about second-hand, and 
also, like everyone else (probably) every Beatles album was key 
milestone in my life in the 60s. I have many recollections of coming 
home from school putting Rubber Soul or whatever other Beatles LP was 
out at the time, and doing my homework and of course listening to it 
until I had essentially memorized every single sound on every track.  
Of course the other guys I was listening to and buying every LP were 
the Stones, especially Between the Buttons, Aftermath, 5 x 5.  Again, 
those LPs were played to death it seemed.  So how can one ethos be 
reconciled with the other?  I loved the Stones and the Beatles, and 
still do, and obviously since this is a Who mailing list, the Who.  But 
I have to say that as far as I'm concerned, the best rock is basically 
simple, catchy.  Suppose the Beatles had started out with Sgt Peppers 
instead of evolving into it?  Do you think they could have made a 
living playing those songs in clubs?  Rock is essentially make-out 
music and something like Eleanor Rigby or Norwegian Wood as beautiful 
as they are aren't songs conducive to turning someone on.  The Fab 4 
built up to Sgt Pepper step by step, introducing listeners to raga rock 
in a song on a LP full of 3 min hits, or some feedback effects on 
another number, etc. I don't know if Sgt Pepper changed rock. I think 
people still want to have a good time, unwind, maybe shake their 
booties, partake of a drink etc., have what passes for a good time in 
this era, and rock helps them with that. 

                                            Helen