|
Unsung Forum » Prog Britannia |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
machineryelf 3681 posts |
Edited Dec 30, 2008, 16:02
Dec 30, 2008, 16:00
|
||
|
IanB wrote: I would of course argue in return that the Mary Chain sucked harder longer on the VU tit than Marillion ever did on Gabriel's but so much easier to go for the crowd pleasing jibe than actually listen to the music. But the Mary Chain had exactly the same thing that Marillion had, a decent song at the heart of it, a tune buried under a mass of feedback or a bunch of keyboard frippery, thats why i still have my JAMC & Marillion lps but threw out the Pallas & Sex Gang Children lps years ago IanB wrote: Overall I think the problem is that I just can't get it up for the Spartist view of musical history. Reminds me too much of squats, dog eared copies of City Limits and Socialist Worker, snakebite, cat piss in the kitchen and the self-styled hipsters with plastic shoes, faux cockney Strummer accents and Lawrence Corner coats. 25 years later it's way too grim and self-limiting a world-view for a bourgeois fucker like me. Even Burchill and Parsons have let it go. Happy new year. sounds like a cliched view of the past, much the same as Wizards in Capes or Bondaged trews punks Personally i'd rather listen to someone play 2 chords with a bit of passion and an idea of a song, than someone who knows his instrument up down and sideways but fails to realise that all the wankery in the world won't make his polished turd a decent song btw happy new year 2u2
|
|||
|
machineryelf 3681 posts |
Dec 30, 2008, 16:14
|
||
|
I would think that Roxy & Bowie on one hand and the Stooges & VUon the other were probably the most influential People on most Punk & prepunk, fair enough anyone who had an interest in music at that time probably had heard Yes, and the Eagles & Fleetwood Mac Its six degrees of seperation, I bet i can trace every punk band back to Slade if I tried, or the Bay City Rollers After all this time it's easy to say this sounds like because you have all the points between Back in 77 Magazine sounded nothing like Yes, and if you played a 5 year old a cd by both of them and asked him what the connection was he'd probably cry and ask for his mum, and once you had calmed him down he'd tell you they were completely different
|
|||
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Edited Dec 30, 2008, 19:38
Dec 30, 2008, 19:31
|
||
|
IanB wrote: There has to be a license to be idiotic as well as brilliant otherwise you end up in that closed loop of nostalgia where what is acceptable is what has already been done. . . . and that's what I love about all that "progressive music in it's broadest sense" of the 67-70something era (including the N. American "jazz rock" which I would argue is our local equivalent of "prog brittania.") ELP lost millions going out on the road with a symphony orchestra -- an idea as artistically dubious as it was financially suicidal. But I revere them for it! I also adore the Monkees precisely because they ruined their careers in pursuit of "artistic legitimacy". They could have kept sucking Don Kirchner's golden teat and racked up the big hits indefinitely, instead they wanted to write and produce their own records "like a real band." That was an insane move, and makes the Monkees one of the bravest groups of the 60's in my mind! (Most bands start out "artistic" then sell out -- Monkees went the other direction! That's a real refusenik move.) Nothing is more boring than an artist that develops a "fear of failure" . . . look what happened to the once-mighty 'n' very-progressive Chicago Transit Authority after they got addicted to having hit singles . . . Lately I've developed a fascination with CSNY for similar reasons -- they had the world in the palm of their hands and they blew it, maan. (And I would further argue that "punk" -- particularly the 1977 variety -- was anti-progressive, which is to say downright reactionary. "We only know three chords" basically reflects a fear of trying to be "extraordinary" -- you can't fail if you never really try.)
|
|||
Deepinder Cheema 1972 posts |
Dec 30, 2008, 19:50
|
||
|
IanB wrote: Deepinder Cheema wrote: Who coined Progressive music ? I think it was a good term hijacked in a curious way by 'Prog', whose derivation is obvious but I feel different. I would agree, Prog became a marketing term to cover the specifically neo-classical / pseudo-classical off-shoots from Psych. I too prefer Progressive as a catch-all but it the two are not mutually exclusive. A lot of worthwhile music got made under the Prog banner and all truly progressive music is by definition worthwhile as it is primarily forward-looking rather than a nostalgic re-creation of something already dead-ended. It's sad if some of Prog's exponents are going for self-mockery like a bunch of Bill Baileys. Their insecurity is tragic. You wouldn't see Fripp or Hamill or Vander stooping so low. Would never occur to them to be apologetic. I like your list and consider those artists to be of great virtue whether you like what they sound like or not. Unfortunately too many people think that all Progressive music is moog-men-in-capes in the same way that they think Zappa was a comedian with a Carlos Santana fixation. People talk about Mahavishnu and VdGG being unlistenable in the same way as they dismiss Webern or Sun Ra. Their loss. I hope they and their I IV V AABA are happy together. I would happily continue this through New Years but I have to disappear for a few days. Though you have prompted me to dig out Focus III, Tabernakel and that Peter Banks / Jan Akkerman collaboration. An excellent analysis based on my humble stumblings into the debate on etymology, and certain musicians and their insecurities - you have it on the button there. Funny you should mention Jan and Pete Banks - Jan is largely ignored through his own stubborness and vanity, which is a shame because he is such a better (incredibly) guitarist and improvising player these days - I think he recently eschewed a chance to collaborate with Pete Banks, which is a shame - but the days when large amounts of money from a record company for artists of this stature to make a record are no more. I believe Jan had talks with Billy Cobham a coupla years ago to make music/gigs also - I wonder what went wrong there?
|
|||
|
machineryelf 3681 posts |
Dec 30, 2008, 20:47
|
||
|
Dog 3000 wrote: (And I would further argue that "punk" -- particularly the 1977 variety -- was anti-progressive, which is to say downright reactionary. "We only know three chords" basically reflects a fear of trying to be "extraordinary" -- you can't fail if you never really try.) What punk said was here are 3 chords, here's a cheap guitar, lets start here, all your ideas are ready to go, you can start and move on what happened was then some moved on and all this rubbish about who is the new prog etc started Rotten,Vanian,Strummer were hardly ordinary, ideas that would never have been considered releaseable by the major labels were made available, IanB made a list of things that owe a debt to Prog, a similar list that owe a debt to Punk would be a lot longer and IMHO far wider reaching, basically every piece of music made since 1977 has a finger in the punk pie from blackmetal to the X-factor
|
|||
|
keith a 9573 posts |
Edited Dec 31, 2008, 00:03
Dec 30, 2008, 23:45
|
||
|
IanB wrote: Whatever the merits of your argument it would carry more weight if you had actually listened to more than a handful of the records you write about. Marillion have made something in the region of 15 studio records of which maybe three sound like one line up of Genesis or another. The last of those was released in 1987. Stop trying to be a smart arse, Ian. I used them as a reference as you were talking about VU type bands in the 80's - a period when Marillion were also rather popular. Still, I've got no idea why I would search out more Marillion records when I've never liked a single track I've heard by them. Surely a band earns the right to be investigated further. Even so, if I was at a mate's house and they put on a recent Marillion record I'd give it a fair listen. But if you actually rate those early records that I find so laughably bad that is all the evidence I need to know that we are never going to agree. IanB wrote: However while you insist on making it up as you go along Yes. I'm so sorry that I'm not as all knowledgable as you so clearly are. IanB wrote: I can only assume your entire critical viewpoint is based on a set of hard-wired prejudices. Well if you assume it then you are clearly right. You always are. Ignoring the fact that I've said any number of times that I like Gentle Giant and have done since I was 15 of course. If anyone is prejudiced here it's you with your rather odd obsession with perspiration rather than inspiration. I couldn't care less how many sides of vinyl Yes recorded in any given period. Personally I think it's more important whether the results are any good. If we all judged music like this no-one would be interested in collections of limited shelf like acts on compilations like Nuggets. IanB wrote: Which is fine. It just makes for a rather boring Spongebob and Patrick type debate. Pink. Yellow. Pink. Yellow etc. Does your patronising nature come naturally or have you had to work as hard at it your beloved prog heroes have had to work at their musicianship? IanB wrote: I would of course argue in return that the Mary Chain sucked harder longer on the VU tit than Marillion ever did on Gabriel's but so much easier to go for the crowd pleasing jibe than actually listen to the music. What crowd am I suppsed to be pleasing exactly? IanB wrote: Overall I think the problem is that I just can't get it up for the Spartist view of musical history. Reminds me too much of squats, dog eared copies of City Limits and Socialist Worker, snakebite, cat piss in the kitchen and the self-styled hipsters with plastic shoes, faux cockney Strummer accents and Lawrence Corner coats. 25 years later it's way too grim and self-limiting a world-view for a bourgeois fucker like me. Even Burchill and Parsons have let it go. Dunno. I've never lived in a squat in my life. I don't live in a city and my cat has a litter tray. To be honest I'm not sure why you seem to think that I have some sort of obsession with the early 80's NME. Not at all. I read it, and I liked it but my fave early 80's artist was Cope who was hardly revered in that rag. I made my own mind up, Ian. Still do. And surely it's a bit rich making out that you've moved on from anything when you are clearly writing posts that resemble a 1975 Melody Maker letters page. IanB wrote: Happy new year. And a happy new year too. Here's hoping for a more personable 2009.
|
|||
|
keith a 9573 posts |
Dec 30, 2008, 23:54
|
||
Spoken like a good 'un, MYE. I was beginning to despair at what I was reading on these pages.
|
|||
|
keith a 9573 posts |
Dec 30, 2008, 23:57
|
||
|
IanB wrote: So only music made by African Americans can be sexual? Hello. And welcome to the Ian B World of Twisting People's Posts.
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Jan 01, 2009, 01:15
|
||
|
But Rotten had to struggle to get his ideas heard in the Sex Pistols -- Malcolm wanted titilating songs about bondage, while Steve & Paul just wanted to be the Heartbreakers or the Ramones. I would argue it wasn't til Johnny got into the more "progressive" PIL that his music became "extraordinary." (In a lot of ways Sex Pistols career almost seems based on the Monkees anyway: Svengali gets together 4 "charismatic" young lads, creates an image for them, and works the media to produce instant fame. Band breaks up when one of them gets "serious about being an artist" instead of continuing to act like a cartoon character according to the original plan. Face it, the Pistols were always more about the marketing than the music.) The Damned were great, but kind of retro (60's and Stooges covers from the get-go.) A classic punk band in that they were a throwback to 60's garage rock, which is not progressive it's reactionary! "They did it better back during the golden age." The Clash did Sandinista! . . . why, that's almost a prog-punk album. Longer than Tales From Topographic Oceans! They are sort of the exception that proves the rule (and so it's no wonder they're probably the most popular and influential of their peers 30 years later -- unlike most of those UK punk bands, they were "progressive".) Punks (the popular class of '77 bands in particular) generally did not push the envelope MUSICALLY -- whatever "cultural" impact that movement had (hairstyles, clothing, making it cool to start your own band, etc.) is sort of beside the point, at least to me. In a lot of ways I think the concurrent DISCO trend was much more important! (Popularizing beat-driven and DJ/producer music, which leads to hiphop and house and rave and all that . . . what did punk lead to, MTV? Hair metal?) And yes there are a zillion more exceptions -- Lydia Lunch, Wire, Black Flag, Chrome, etc. -- even in a scene that strives for extraordinary-ness (or it's opposite), there are always some who are going to be more extraordinary than others. ;-) Anyway, happy new year all!!
|
|||
|
keith a 9573 posts |
Jan 01, 2009, 01:44
|
||
|
Revisionism us a wonderful thing. I saw The Damned in '77 and believe me there was nothing retro about them. It#s easy to re-write it all and label them as cartoon-like (which is only half the story) but they were scary back then.
|
| Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| Unsung Forum Index | |
