Classic Albums: Does the Emperor Have Clothes?

I have been listening to what are regarded as all-time classic rock albums lately. While each of them has its merits (so the Emperor is at least partially dressed), some are not as good as you would expect given the long-running hype. Some were perhaps ground-breaking at the time and deserve praise for what they accomplished but they just don't hold up as well on later listening. Some are not even the best album by that artist.

Admission: This is a nit-picking exercise. But the purpose of doing so is to try to separate the quality of the album from the hype and see if we can put them in proper perspective. You will not agree with some of my evaluations, but give them a fresh listening and see if I don't have a point.

By the way, all of these albums are from the 1960s and early 1970s. I don't feel comfortable commenting on anything released later. Also, I should mention that, while I appreciate good lyrics, the music has to grab me.

Worth the Hype:
Stevie Wonder. Songs in the Key of Life. 1976. My wife cannot understand my fascination with either this album or the one that follows. Both are definitely products of their time. Their innovativeness has been so copied that they don't sound as unique any longer. I get that, but facts are facts. Both these albums live up to the hype.
Stevie was on a roll when he made this album. Each of the five albums he made in the seventies before this one had been better than the previous one and showed incredible maturity and artistic vision from a man who had been a pop-star in the sixties. In fact, each of the two previous albums won Grammy awards for Album of the Year.
Songs in the Key of Life took two years to record and mix. He ended up with a double-LP and four more songs that were put on an EP which was included in the set (truthfully, the EP songs were nowhere near as strong as the rest of the album). The delay and gossip in the press hyped the album to the point that it was one of the most anticipated albums ever. It did not disapoint.
Besides incredibly strong songs, it covered several musical genres: R&B, smooth jazz, pop, with other songs that are hard to pigeon-hole. It is a fine album that still holds up today.


The Beach Boys. Pet Sounds. 1966. If you want to fully appreciate this album, listen to a few of the group's earlier hits, like "Help Me Rhonda" or "409" or "California Girls" first. Then play this album. The intricate vocals would tell you that it's the Beach Boys, but the songs and music would make you wonder when they grew up. The lyrics are much more mature. The backing tracks are full and innovative. The sound is unlike anything ever heard to that time. Though Brian Wilson was only concerned about the mono mix, the stereo mix allows you to hear all of the instruments better, especially if you use headphones.
It has become a cliche, but so many musicians have cited this album as inspiration for their own work (most notably its immediate and direct influence on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band).
Pet Sounds produced four standout singles ("Wouldn't It Be Nice," "Caroline, No," "Sloop John B.," and the exquisite "God Only Knows"), but the other tracks are of similar quality (I will admit that neither of the two instrumentals do anything for me, however).
I think it is a near perfect album that deserves every accolade thrown its way. It may not hold up as well for many people today, but it is certainly worth a listen when you have time to concentrate on everything going on in the background.

Bruce Springsteen. Born to Run. 1975. Insufferably hyped at the time, Bruce's continued success over the years allowed the ballyhoo over this particular album to retreat to more normal levels. The songs themselves, though great, are not necessarily his best, mostly because he has so many great ones. What really set this album apart was its consistent vision and production that brought out that vision. It was leaps and bounds beyond his first two albums and he did not try to duplicate this sound on subsequent albums. The fact that these songs have been overplayed over the years make a fresh re-listening hard, but it is a worthwhile endeavor.

Less Hyped, But the Hype Matches Properly:
The Rolling Stones. Exile on Main Street. 1972. Though most critics consider this the Stones' best album, not all agree and many fans have other preferences. That makes it perfectly hyped, in my opinion. Their previous three albums (Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, and Sticky Fingers) found the band moving away from rock/blues/psychedelia into roots-rock. As with most double-albums, there is a disjointed quality to Exile, but this actually serves the style well. Jagger was getting tired of roots-rock (their next album moved into R&B territory) and drugs made the sessions ragged, but they still pulled together a great album.

Fleetwood Mac. Rumours. 1977. I understand that no one looks back and praises this album for its inventiveness. However, it is one of the biggest-selling albums of all time with constant airplay and fans clamoring for these songs in concerts. So we should talk about it. It has more well-crafted quality pop-rock packed into its 39 minutes than any album has a right to. And the songs still hold up. Though they produced good music before and after this, Rumours represented an incredible artistic peak.


Really Good Albums that Are Just Not What the Hype Says They Are:
The Beatles. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band. 1967. This is the one that gets everyone upset. Let me say this first: It is a terrific album. But it does not measure up to the praise lavished upon it. Let's recognize what's good about it first. It was an incredible leap forward in what rock music could do. There were innovative advances on Rubber Soul and Revolver as well, but they still mostly used guitar, bass, drums, and piano. Sgt. Pepper didn't follow those rules. Lots of keyboards that are hard to identify. Instruments like the bass harmonica (borrowed from Pet Sounds). Also, it included four of the Beatles all-time top songs: "Sgt. Pepper," "With a Little Help from My Friends," "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," and "A Day in the Life."
My real problem with the adulation for this album is, once you strip away the production, the other songs are quite ordinary. "She's Leaving Home" is downright schmaltzy. "When I'm Sixty-Four" is the kind of song you would do on a TV special with a vaudville guest but never record. The rest are nothing special.
So for me, it deserve many accolades for its innovations and its influence, but because of its songs, it is not as good as Rubber Soul, Revolver, or even the White Album. I will put any of those albums on before I listen to Sgt. Pepper.

Bob Dylan. Blonde on Blonde. 1966. Most fans and critics consider Dylan's peak to be the three succesive albums, Bringing It All Home, Highway 61 Revisited, and this one. I concur. Like many other albums on this list, Blonde on Blonde is a great album. However, it is not even the best in this "trilogy." That honor goes to the much tighter and in-your-face Highway 61. Blonde suffers the fate of many double-albums. It seems to meander without purpose at times and contains too much filler. The sound of the album is cleaner than the ruggedness of Highway 61 and it contains some great and near-great songs. I just don't think it matches the hype.


You Had to Be There:
Carole King. Tapestry. 1971. Good pop songs by a master songwriter. Simple production and musicianship by the same crew that did James Taylor's albums. The reason this album is on the list at all is its phenominal sales--one of the biggest selling albums of all time. I like this album a lot and there is nothing to dislike. However, its fan-base is largely comprised of women who were pre-teens or teens when they first heard it. It seems to me that some of the legendary feel and enduring quality is related to the feelings that are invoked when it is heard and remembered.

The Velvet Underground and Nico. The Velvet Underground. 1967. It has been said that though they sold few records, everyone who bought one started a band. I'm not sure which bands are refered to or if they were any good. I can hear the proto-punk aspects and understand why bohemian New Yorkers might gravitate to it. However, let me say that I think it's just awful. I have given it three listens over several months. There are a couple of decent songs, but Nico's tuneless singing (on only three tracks, mercifully) combined with sightly out-of-tune guitars along with depressing drones that they call melodies combine to make this unlistenable. Maybe if you're from NYC or really into punk or fond of herion-chic, you may like this.

The Byrds. Sweethearts of the Rodeo. 1968. Gram Parsons' influence here was groundbreaking and helped birth the whole country-rock genre. This was the first successful rock album to introduce stone-cold country to its audience. Listening to it forty-four years later, it is clear that later practicioners did it much better, especially Parsons and Chris Hillman with their next band, The Flying Burrito Brothers. So it deserves kudos for how innovative it was at the time; it's just not that great to listen to now.

Pink Floyd. Dark Side of the Moon. 1973. Possibly the most hyped album ever, both at the time and to the present day. It is hard to imagine that any album could live up to the hype. It's not a bad album, but it's hard for me to say that is a great album, much less one of the best ever. It is the ultimate trippy album and I'm sure that much of the warm feelings attached to it are by people who got stoned to it back in the day.
Dark Side explores the concept of madness, inspired by both Syd Barrett's psychoses and how crazy the music business made them feel at times. The problem is that they did it better on the next album, Wish You Were Here, which was also better musically. How can Dark Side be one the best albums of all time when it's not even Pink Floyd's best album? I would even rate Animals and Meddle at least as good, if not better, than Dark Side.
Much is made out of the fact that each song segues into the next with no break. However, this is not because the songs truly flow into each other (except for the last two), but because they either just remove the spaces between the songs or craft a long sustained chord for one song to fade out over and the next to fade in. They did a much better job of making disparate parts into a suite with "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" on Wish.
Some of the tracks still get played on the radio, but I challenge anyone who really thinks this is one of the best albums ever to give it a fresh listen in its entirety. See if you don't start rethinking what everyone says.

I Just Don't Get It:
Van Morrison. Astral Weeks. 1968. Lyrically and musically, it is a very spacy album that feels like a deep spiritual experience to devotees. Its lyrics may be all that and a bag of chips, but the music is just boring. On many songs, it feels as if he is making up the tune and lyrics as he sings over the same two chords repeated again and again. There is little structure to most songs. The record buying public agreed. This isn't even Morrison's best album. That would be his next album, Moondance--well-crafted, accessible songs that you could easily remember on first listening, and without sacrificing good lyrics.

Has Contemporary Worship Jumped the Shark?

Though there are still plenty of churches which use more traditional forms of worship, contemporary worship dominates the American Evangelical landscape, especially in larger churches. I have long waited for this day to arrive. However, I think that, in many respects and in many places, contemporary worship has gone too far in a direction that is not healthy for the church. Today, I call on everyone involved in worship leading to consider these issues and see if an adjustment is in order.

My Credentials

I have been involved in leading worship practically from the time I got off my knees at the altar in 1973. A rock-and-roller with some country influence, I have always been convinced that we weren’t going to reach modern people with the gospel being wrapped up in old-fashioned musical forms.

I rode the wave of the Praise and Worship Movement through the Maranatha! Music and Scripture in Song product of the 1970s, the Integrity Hosanna contributions of the 1980s, Vineyard Music’s revolution of the 1990s, down to Hillsongs, Matt Redmond, Chris Tomlin, and David Crowder. I have led worship and played guitar, bass, and keyboards in worship bands.

As I said, I have long supported the entire concept of contemporary forms of worship. Though they tell me I am old enough at 57, I will never join the senior adult ministry at any church because I do not want to live in the past. I have told my wife that I want a praise band to play at my funeral and I want them to sing whatever songs are current, not to go back to some “golden era.” So I think I’m qualified to speak to this topic.

Contemporary Worship Defined

Contemporary. I like this definition of “contemporary”: “Belonging to or occurring in the present.” It describes what is happening across society at the present time. Outside of church, the average person does not go to choir concerts or organ recitals, for example. So why should church music be like this?

But the word “contemporary” must not be mistaken for the word “hip” which can be defined as “Beyond all trends and conventional coolness.” Basic pop/rock music is contemporary; rap music might be understood as hip.

This is an important distinction. Many of the details I will address later are from confusing contemporary with hip. Hip is what the youngest people or some sub-cultures think is the latest style; contemporary is what the average person thinks is modern. It is a common-denominator approach.

Worship. Many people define “worship” in different ways. For the purposes of this article, I am limiting “worship” to our acts of praise to and about God in a corporate setting. Mostly, this involves vocal and musical praise.

The old Praise and Worship Movement taught us—though some have forgotten—that our focus in worship should be on entering the presence of God in a real way and directly our thoughts and feelings directly to him. Though songs of praise about what God has done and directed to others were acceptable (these were the mainstays of the hymnals we were moving away from), the movement helped us write and use songs that were directed to God.

The belief was that the activity of worship (narrowly defined) should bring us to an actual encounter with God. That nothing else around us should matter as we focused our attention upon him. That we could actually feel his presence in our midst (very Pentecostal, actually).

Contemporary Worship. The result of merging these two concepts led us to a contemporary worship that used modern musical forms to help us enter the presence of God and, once there, pour out our hearts to him.

In my experience, no one captured this concept better and more consistently than the Vineyard churches in the late 1980s and 1990s (they may still, I just haven’t had much contact with them since then). They produced a boat-load of good songs that many non-Vineyard churches used during that time (including a few that are still used today). Visiting the “mother church” in Anaheim demonstrated how a simple rock band could lead these songs in a church setting while maintaining an atmosphere to enter God’s presence. They proved that you could attract modern non-believers into a place where the presence of God was celebrated. These concepts were not mutually exclusive.

There was no showmanship. Though the music and players were high quality, this was never a performance. The songs were arranged and orderly, yet the Spirit moved.

This was not the only church where I saw this in operation. A church in whose worship band I played in the early 2000s also had this balance. Other churches of which I have been a part before and since have been less successful at the blend, but still had some manner of it.

My experience that a church can have both contemporary worship to draw new people and a real sense of God’s presence will inform the rest of this article.

The Problems

1. Some churches are too hip. See my definition above. Hipster pastor and worship leaders are now in vogue, with their skinny jeans, glasses they may or may not need, and plaid shirts. I can live with that as long as they’re sticking with the truth of the Bible and helping me move into God’s presence.

Unfortunately, this attitude carries over into worship in ways that will be described in more detail below. I believe that behind these issues is a desires to be so “cutting edge” that they forget that the average person is not “cutting edge.” Therefore, worship appeals only to the youngest and hippest people out there.

Though a lot of people attend these churches (it “works”), a lot of non-hip people are driven away. I know a lot of them. However, I have never known someone who dropped out of church entirely because they attended a merely contemporary-styled church because it wasn’t hip enough.

Save the “hip” for the youth group or college group, but, if a church is interested in reaching as many people as possible, just being contemporary is not only good enough, it broadens the appeal.

2. Don’t turn worship into a performance. Play skillfully. Arrange the songs tightly. But the smoke machines, flashing lights, hand-held video of the performers are, at best, distracting and, at worst, a serious hindrance to authentic, in-the-presence-of-God worship. This may be contemporary for a concert, worship is not supposed to be a concert.

I don’t understand what advantage this brings to the worship experience. It would look like a standard pop concert to a younger participant, but does it help them enter into God’s presence?

3. Let’s talk about volume. I am not going to give you the old-fogey argument here. I don’t have a problem with the volume being turned up pretty good. I’ve always been of the school that believes that the music or preaching volume should be enough to reach out and grab people to make them pay attention. However, in the hipper churches, the volume is even higher than that. The problem with the volume being at rock concert levels is that a person can’t hear themselves or anyone else sing. As worship is a participatory community activity, there needs to be a balance between good volume and crowd participation.

4. Some of the songs are not easily singable. The point of the song should be participation. The average person has a more limited vocal range than worship singers. Worship leaders should remember this. There are several newer songs that, early in the song are in a lower register, but then later jump to sing the same notes an octave up. It sounds great in a performance song, but the average person cannot do that. The lower part is too low for many, and the higher part is too high for even more. I’ve watched people give up. When your goal is participation, you need to find a key that avoids extremes as much as possible, even if it’s different than on the original recording.

5. Whoa, whoa, whoa, oh, oh. Really? Have we run out of words?

6. Replacing experiencing God’s presence with activity. This was a problem of the old camp-meeting song service. Hand-clapping, Jericho marches, choreographed hand waving is something that the Praise and Worship Movement moved us away from. Having the youth come down to the front of the auditorium to jump up and down may be fun, but it’s not entering God’s presence.

7. There are stories of carnality among worship personnel. I am NOT branding all who lead worship as described above like this, so feel free to ignore this part if it doesn’t apply to your setting. Unfortunately, I have heard several stories—first hand—of worship leaders or musicians getting drunk and participating in other activities that we should not condone. I do not personally have a problem if your guitarist plays in a band that occasionally plays in a bar. But if you find out that he pounds down a six pack while he’s there, I think there is a problem. Leading people in worship is a holy activity and, though we are all imperfect vessels, we must give our best to God for him to bless it to others.

Conclusion

It is possible to have authentic worship while trying to attract the unchurched. Those who do get saved need that kind of worship and those who are not saved even need to be exposed to people who worship. Several of the trends noted above are a hindrance to authentic worship with little or no gain of the unchurched. This has been proven by the many churches which have learned this balance.

I hope you believe me when I say these are not the rantings of an old fart. If you have heard me play guitar, you know I can still rock. I love contemporary worship; I just want it to lead to an authentic experience in the presence of God.

Please hear these thoughts that I’ve collected over the last few years and consider if your approach to worship is bringing people into the presence of God.

The Beatles Album Ranking

Watching the televised celebration of the Beatles' appearance on the Ed Sullivan last night got me to listening to Beatles music all day today while I work. Others may categorize it differently, but I see four distinct phases of Beatles music: (1) Mop-tops. (2) Mature music phase. (3) Psychedelic. (4) Break-up phase. The show only gave us clips of the mop-tops, but most of the songs that were performed by other artists were from 2 and 3.

I wasn't a big mop-top fan; I was still listening to my parents' big band records. But when I heard music from their mature phase at age 10, I fell in love with the Beatles. This leads me to my ranking of the best Beatles' albums. Naturally, the best fall into the mature phase. This list is for the UK album releases rather than the US because each album better represents a time in their career. The early US versions drew from different albums and consequently mixed periods.

Top Tier:
1. Rubber Soul. The first complete offering in their mature phase. This was recorded in the fall of 1965 and Revolver in the spring of 1966. Though they continued to tour, they weren't busy making a movie, so they had more time to write and record. A lot of people consider Revolver to be the better of the two albums--and there is truthfully not a lot to choose between them--but I just happen to like these songs a little better.
2. Revolver. Definitely more experimental than Rubber Soul ("Tomorrow Never Knows," "Love You To," "She Said, She Said") and it rocks a little harder too. When you include the singles from this era ("Day Tripper"/"We Can Work It Out" and "Paperback Writer"/"Rain"), they wrote and recorded 32 incredible songs in about 9 months. Top artists would be happy to have these 32 songs to represent their best work over a long career.
3. The Beatles (White Album). Though this album is part of the psychedelic era and has some connection with it, most of the songs in here reflect the mature Beatles era. Also some overlap with the break-up era in that there is much less collaboration here than on any other Beatles album. Some silly songs ("Bungalo Bill" and "Honey Pie" come to mind) but some incredible tracks as well (too many to list). And to think that "Hey Jude"/"Revolution" were released as singles rather than included on the album.
4. Abbey Road. Their final recorded album is in some ways a throwaway. Side two is filled with incomplete songs that they never cared enough about to finish so they put them into a medley. But the medley works amazingly well and, when you include the excellent fully developed songs ("Maxwell's Silver Hammer" being the exception), it makes for a wonderful swan song. Unfortunately, the Let It Be album would come out afterward to make the ending a little sour.
Wonderful Stuff:
5. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. I know, I know. How can I not put this album higher? Easy. The emperor has no clothes. Because it was so jarringly innovative, Pepper has achieved fame out of proportion to the music itself. It's very, very good, but, to my mind, it does not quite match up to the albums listed above.
6. Beatles for Sale. The most underrated album they ever did. I don't think anyone else would rate it this high. It only includes 8 originals and has their worst cover ever ("Mr. Moonlight"), but it is the beginning of a transitional phase from the mop-tops of A Hard Day's Night to what they would become. It is a relatively quiet album as well with a lot of acoustic guitars. "No Reply," "I'm a Loser," "Baby's in Black," "What You're Doing," and "Every Little Thing" (along with the cover of Buddy Holly's "Words of Love") are incredible tracks. I will put this album on before anything below.
7. Help. I would like to rank this album higher. Many terrific songs. Still transitional in that "Another Girl," "You're Going to Lose that Girl," "Act Naturally," and "Dizzy Miss Lizzy" could have appeared on any early album. You know the standout tracks. However, I find the mastering of the album strange. It sounds compressed or something (I'm not a sound engineer), which makes it hard to listen to. Can anyone explain this to me?
8. A Hard Day's Night. The culmination of the mop-tops with that era's best songs and some hints of the transition to come. The first album with no covers, but definitely a few filler tracks.
Seriously Flawed Albums:
9. Let It Be. This is the hardest album for me to rate. I could make an argument for higher or lower. John had only one decent contribution ("Don't Let Me Down"), but McCartney had some of his biggest songs ("Let It Be," "The Long and Winding Road," "Get Back"). Along with Paul, I hated what Phil Spector did to it with the overdubbed orchestra and voices. The Let It Be Naked album is much better than the original release, but still really uneven.
10. Magical Mystery Tour. Full-on psychedelic phase. The inclusion of the singles "Strawberry Fields," "Penny Lane," and "All You Need Is Love" (none of which had anything to do with the movie or the rest of the album) save it from total disaster. Only the more modern production keeps this above the mop-top era albums.
Mop-Tops:
11. With the Beatles. These albums are not rated this low because they were not important. They were outrageously important and, along with the singles of that era, ushered in modern rock music. But when I go back and listen to them, I'm ready to move on to something better.
12. Please Please Me. If I were to rank these two albums by their importance or influence they would be numbers 6 and 7, but I only enjoy them for their historical sake.
Throwaway:
13. Yellow Submarine. Only four new Beatles songs. One throwaway track each from John and Paul. George's contributions are greatly under appreciated, but are among his better songs. Side two is dismissible movie theme music.