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.