Icons overrated?

On the 40th anniversary of The Beatles' "Sgt. Peppers", the album's legacy was put into scrutiny again by rock critics and journalists all over the world. Is it still the best album of all time? Or is it the most overrated? Does it still make sense to ask? Probably not if only for the sake of music argument. It is now disputed as to whether Peppers is even the best Beatles' album. Personally, I think that both "Revolver" and the "Magical Mistery Tour" soundtrack are superior as song collections and that, despite being flawed, the "White Album" broke new ground more than Peppers. I think "Sgt. Peppers" is a good album but its canonization probaby has more to do with other factors (time of release, engineering prowess, artwork) than with the songs. Some critics agree with this while others still think that "Sgt. Peppers" is the definite article. Some critics don't even think the Beatles were that good. It just takes all views which says a lot about the postmodern status of music writing. One thing that can't be disputed is that "Sgt. Peppers" is a sixties icon, the one album which best symbolizes the summer of love - especially for those who did not live through it. Me being one of those who were not born yet when the summer of love happened, I can easily accept the album being the one which best sums up that moment. But that's when you know then icons don't mean much...

Or maybe they do... Jeff Buckley made a very wise career move when he went for a swim in the Mississipi with his boots on. With a near perfect first album behind and a struggle to deliver the goods on his second one, an early tragic death could only ensure him a God-like status and a escape from ordinariness. He stands next to Kurt Cobain as the last rock'n roll icon. Few contest his genius and that's why I was awestruck by this article by Jude Rogers in the Guardian's blog where she dismisses Buckley as the Christine Aguillera of alternative rock. While Buckley was certainly more talented than Aguillera, I partly agree with some of Rogers' anti-Buckley arguments: that he veered at stages towards self-indulgence in his vocal delivery, often lacking control and subtlety. That he was a bit too hystrionic at times - something that may be proved on his posthumous live recordings. I would add as I did elsewhere in this blog that for all his effortless vocal delivery his father Tim was a better singer. But I still think that "Grace" is a very good album. The singing is still for the most awesome while also being an element in the incredible musical dynamics and shifts which should be credited to Jeff and the great musicians who were backing him. The range of influences from Led Zeppelin to Nina Simone and Tim Buckley himself was nothing to be taken for granted. Who cares or can tell whether it came from the heart or was calculated? It was balanced and displayed with wit and a clear understanding of each one's very substance. It is still an album which pushed the boundaries of rock in 1993 and paved the way for many rock acts (for the better and the worse).

So, I am sorry for not taking a radical stand on both icons but I leave it that way. Only James Blunt and Nick Drake can slowly kill and bring me back to life, respectively, I'm afraid.