What albums do you nominate as the oddball, out there, experimental efforts by bands looking to stretch creatively, and what’s your opinion of them? Do you consider them unrecognized masterpieces? Or at least appreciate their quirky charm, or the band’s willingness to get out of their comfort zone? Or do you think the album’s a total failure and embarrassment? Or something in between?
I’ll get things started with The Rolling Stones psychedelic answer to the Beatles’ ‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’: Their Satanic Majesties Request. At the time I was introduced to the album it was as a misbegotten teenage wanna-be rock musician who was turned on to the album by a classmate who was also a misbegotten teenage wanna-be rock musician and loved the album. As a result, I developed an appreciation for it, despite the fact that, despite the one single 'She’s a Rainbow" it’s very different from any other Stones album. It’s as if you told an AI program to create an album of songs as if written and performed by versions of the Stones who were also rabid ‘Lord of the Rings’ and D&D fans, or something.I don’t think it’s aged well, though.
From what I understand, ‘Some Girls’ was the Stones’ foray into Disco apparently, though being more mainstream Stones than TSMR, I never realized this until I read, I think in Keith Richard’s autobiography, that Mick said to Keith one day “mate, we need to do a Disco album”, which made Keith roll his eyes.
Fleetwood Mac’s ‘Tusk’ was widely criticized at the time for being an overindulgent mess, though I’ve always liked the album a lot and felt it was underrated. I think it got more appreciation in later years.
Then there’s Neil Young’s electronica experiment ‘Trans’ which I have no opinion on because, despite being a big Young fan and having owned most of his albums, I honestly don’t remember what I thought of Trans, or anything about it, though I’m sure I listened to it at least once. I guess that might say it all, though.
Interesting question. The Beatles’ “White Album” (actually The Beatles) is among the albums of theirs I like the least – but almost every album of theirs ventured into new territory, so it’s not so much about its experimental-ness, but that half the tracks could be eliminated to make a much better album.
The Beach Boys’ (mainly, Brian Wilson’s) Pet Sounds was experimental in many ways, and it’s fantastic – it deserves all the praise it has received over the decades.
Was Jethro Tull’s A Passion Play experimental? It’s the only album of theirs (between 1968 and 1978) that I truly dislike.
Interesting album choice. Which tracks would you cut out? For me, and likely most people, even the most ardent Beatles fans, ‘Revolution 9’ is a no-brainer to start with. I can do without ‘Wild Honey Pie’ for the same reason as Revolution 9- it’s basically discordant atonal fluff that’s not listenable more than once or twice. “Why Don’t We Do It in the Road” is kind of a groovy jam, but ultimately short and pointless.
Then there’s the 30s dance hall music-inspired songs by McCartney that he loved to write so much, the ones that Lennon called his ‘Granny music’, that still persist even at this late stage of their psychedelic transformation: ‘Honey Pie’, ‘Martha My Dear’. I’ve always kinda been on John’s side of that argument-- enough with the Granny crap. ‘Good Night’ is a snoozer. Like literally-- it’s basically a lullaby.
I don’t care for Pet Sounds. Sure, it has some good songs, but I don’t think it works as an album.
I think The Beatles is just crap. Don’t own it, don’t want it.
I like Some Girls. It think it works, and I like even the silly songs like Faraway Eyes.
I listened to Trans once, and I thought Neil should get back on the road. (Neil would later say that Harvest “put me in the middle of the road. Traveling there soon became a bore so I headed for the ditch.”) Maybe I’d think differently now, or maybe not.
Can any Pink Floyd albums be considered “oddball”, or all they all just odd in different ways? Because I think Animals is a bit much. Too specific in criticisms of real people that we in America never heard of, and are probably forgotten now. But Dogs is a classic.
The true oddball Neil Young album is Arc. Mrs. Martian bought it for me one Christmas, I listened for about ten minutes, then put it away for good. Kind of like a longer, noisier spin of Terry Kath’s “Free Form Guitar” from Chicago Transit Authority. The Wikipedia description sums it up pretty well:
The album consists of feedback, guitar noise, improvisations and vocal fragments which were recorded during various live shows on the 1991 US tour, and then re-edited into a 35-minute composition.
I was actually at Neil’s show im Milwaukee that year. Sonic Youth was the opening act. Four of us were there, spend five minutes suffering Sonic Youth’s feedback-driven noise rock, then retired to toe concourse until the main act started. Along with a LOT of other people.
Yeah, that’s right, I had a vague memory that ol’ Neil’s experimental period lasted longer than just the ‘Trans’ album, but I forgot about ‘Arc’. Maybe I was mentally blocking it out
I actually love “Revolution 9”. I took two semester of “Electronic Music” in college. In those days composing electronic music consisted of recording a lot of “found sounds”, toying around with a primitive analog monochromatic synth, playing with strange equalizer settings, and lots and lots of tape splicing and tape loops. Very much in the “Revolution 9” genre.
For my final project I had found a recording of TS Eliot reading The Wasteland and used it as the recurring theme of my piece (imaginatively called “The Wasteland”). I got an A. I still have the tape, unfortunately no way to play is since it was recorded on a four track half-inch Ampex tape recorder.
Speaking of oddball albums, Allan Sherman released an unusually sincere and non-satirical single near the end of his career titled…”Odd Ball.” It’s worth a listen.
I’ve brought up The Crazy World of Arthur Brown in several music threads. He seemed to hit pretty much all the marks for odd, weird and experimental back in the 60s. The first album wasn’t a total flop, as it had the hit song “Fire”, a million seller, and a version of “I Put A Spell On You”. His onstage presence was controversial, as he would sometimes appear naked and he once set his hair on fire.
Miles Davis was always challenging the status quo. I hated “Bitches Brew” when it came out.
Sgt. Pepper took some getting used to. I couldn’t figure out if it was a parody or WTF.
Interesting-- I was not familiar with that album. When I went through my “trying to learn to like and appreciate Jazz, with mixed results” phase, I tried to learn to like Miles Davis’ most popular album Kind of Blue and couldn’t get into it. But that track from On the Corner kind of slaps, as the kids would say. I like it.
Lou Reed’s Metal Machine Music was castigated when it came out, though now some people find its experimentalism a precursor of ambient music. I find it unlistenable.
Well, let’s see there is Leon Russell’s Hank Wilson’s Back Vol 1. Kind of came out of left field. Soft spot, great album with lots of legends playing on it (Billy Byrd, Johnny Gimble, Charlie McCoy)
Similarly, Elvis Costello’s Almost Blue. Great country classics (George Jones cover, Hank Williams cover) and the heart-breakingly beautiful cover of “I’m Your Toy” (Gram Parsons). Soft spot - can’t get enough.
Good question. Since the band changed so much, in their member lineup and as a result in their sound and thematic elements, yeah it’s difficult to choose any Floyd album as the ‘odd one out’. That said…
I love Animals. I think it’s a masterpiece of anger and sarcasm. I don’t mind that it may reference specific people that I as an American never heard of, because I always thought the overarching themes of the album were universal, not just relating to British politics or society.
If we limit things to the Roger Waters era, I’d say ‘The Final Cut’ was an oddball album. Though it’s ‘officially’ a Pink Floyd album, it basically functions as a Waters album backed up by the rest of Floyd, with Waters still working through his particular childhood traumas and daddy issues that he apparently didn’t finish with The Wall double album. But there’s also a historical aspect, asking the question “what happened to the postwar dream” that makes it an interesting and listenable album in my view. At least, I did go through a period of listening to and enjoying it quite a bit, though not for many years now. Apparently its reputation has grown somewhat since its release:
The Final Cut received mixed reviews, though retrospective reception has been more favourable.
Frank Sinatra’s 1980 triple concept album Trilogy: Past Present Future starts out conventionally enough (jazz standards), starts making some odd choices (“MacArthur Park”?) and finally goes completely off the rails:
It wasn’t the typical (for his younger years) Leonard Cohen album, and it isn’t similar to his style from his middle age or old age albums either. It’s just something different, basically Leonard Cohen meets a big band, that I find enjoyable.
Kid A by Radiohead was a big departure from their previous guitar-driven work. It’s experimental, more electronica- and ambient-influenced, and generally weird. It confused a lot of fans and critics when it was released in 2000.
Over time, it has become regarded as one of the most influential albums. Rolling Stone has it #20 on the 500 best albums of all time list, and Pitchfork has it as the #1 album of 2000-2009.
I was already more into electronica and less of a Radiohead fan in 2000, so I didn’t feel too strongly about it when it came out. Now I can really appreciate how influential it was for the time, but I don’t listen to it too regularly. Somewhat amusingly, the song from it that I listen to most often is the most guitar-driven song, The National Anthem. Which is still a pretty weird song.
