ELO Out Of The Blue

Seriously, there isn't a moment on this that isn't absolute GENIUS. Considering the likes of Elephant 6, Daftpunk, Air, and anyone else who attempts to make stellar multi-instrumetal psychedelic big big pop is ripping this album off, shouldn't Layne Stanley deserve a bit more credit than the label of "sub-standard AOR Beatles-ripper"?

I love this album more than life could meantion.

It is for me.

Dunno what your definition is, but I have seen "Out Of The Blue" in lots of album canon lists. Not Top 100, sure, but it is usually somewhere in the Top 500.

Which is of course well-deserved.

Geir, I haven't personally seen it that high on many lists. But surely this is what the Beatles would have made if they'd stayed together and carried on in the way they did? I also like the way Lynne worked with themes, in the same cyclical way Brian Wilson did with Smile.
It's surely a bit more deserving than a couple of mentions on the odd top 500 list. I do like the way I've seen ELO being reappraised on Stylus and being played in indie clubs and stuff lately.

The original album might have been broken up over sides, but weren't albums like this in the 70s meant to be listened to as a whole? You get stoned and you go on your journey with ELO?

If they'd gone on a more pop oriented journey by 1977 it might. And that is not unlikely, considering even John Lennon hadn't been "cutting edge" since around "Imagine" in 1971 anyway.

Well exactly, that's why ELO don't really sound much like the Beatles at the end of the day, which makes them all the more unique and special to me.

You still had to get up every 20 minutes or so to change sides, so there are 3 built-in intermissions there (though of course for stoners listening on 8-track, there's no intermission, and no end, but I think it's safe to assume the 2xLP format is what he had foremost in mind when sequencing this album).

Consider that Out of the Blue was pressed with sides 1 and 2 on the first record and sides 3 and 4 on the other (US Jet version, anyway). Compare/contrast with Songs in the Key of Life (arguably OOtB's closest peer), which used the record-changer friendly 1/4/2/3 configuration. In other words, Stevie was trying to make it as easy as possible to have a continuous listening experience. Jeff could have done this, but didn't. Of course this goes out the window if it turns out the UK pressing was 1/4/2/3.

ELO as stoner rock doesn't quite add up for me.

If something sounds good when getting stoned doesn't mean it's stoner rock. The whole music tradition from which Jeff Lynne descends consists of some of the most stoner friendly music ever recorded: I am the Walrus-era Beatles, the Move, Roy Wood Wizzard, ElO, etc. This is pop music filled with all kinds of wild hooks and studio wizardry that all gets pretty wild sounding when getting high. I mean, that was one of the big traditions in late-60s and 70s rock music. You got high and listened to a record like it was a journey. Now that tracking stuff is really interesting. I never knew about that. But still, Out of the Blue, with that gatefold perfect for rolling one on and all the wild, space graphics. How is that not at least somewhat tied into getting high and listening to wicked-sweet spacey pop music?

Are you implying cocaine took over? I agree that cocaine use exploded in the late-70s, but I still think a ton of dudes were smoking weed and listening to jams. I don't think that ever really went away; it just wasn't as hip and headline-grabbing as before. But then again, all I know was that my bro was a total stoner and owned that record because I remember sitting it on my lap and just staring at the graphics. It was far out.

And I'll bet money the Wilburys burned a few!

You're right QuantumNoise, "stoner rock" isn't exactly what you were claiming for ELO upthread. But what you originally claimed -that you were expected to listen to these LPs by getting high and going on a journey with ELO-- was more than just "it sounds good when you're stoned".

I just think that, for all of their quasi-psych flourishes (which you make a good case for), that expectation simply isn't the case with ELO. There isn't much trippy about them. Their orchestral flourishes, for all their baroque grandeur, seem to me in service of venerable pop emotions (love, etc) rather than mind-trips.

And then, for what it's worth, the people I knew who were into ELO in the late 70s were not smoking the spliff, but were an awkward archipelago of, I dunno, older sisters, nebbish types, and self-proclaimed teenage sound engineers. I just think the dazed and confused reception theory usually applied to mid70s prog is a bid fit for ELO.

totally with dog latin on this one.

I have a prejudice again Jeff Lynne because he brings the same ELO sound to everything he touches (which made him a poor choice to handle the Beatles 'Free as a Bird').

More like the typical ELO fan by 1977 was an ex-hippie who had long since settled down living a silent and very mainstream family life.

someone doesn't like this album... the "relief" of birmingham blues, indeed