Re: Who/Rush/prog/LROM/etc

[Lucas Bleicher <bleicher@who.net>]

Mark R. Leaman
>>to me, Crimson was truly revolutionary on their Bruford-Wetton and 80's
>>phases.
 
> I would agree with you there; it was no longer regressive. Which album I
> can't say, as I lost track after Lizard (hated it).

Try listening to the Lark's/Starless/Red trilogy. They're my favourite
KC
albuns. I like their first phase, but to me the best one is on these
albums.
 
>> Yes released 90125
 
> It isn't THAT bad. Try Tales, which isn't commercial but just ponderous. Yes
> lost me long before 90125.

Yeah, it's not bad, in fact it's a very good pop album. The problem is
that they
completely abandoned their model, which is my favourite amongst the
"symphonic progressive rock" bands (I always prefered Yes, and not
Genesis, on
this style). The problem on Tales is that it's just to big. If they had
put
all those ideas on one single disc, it would be a very good Yes album.
I like this album, but there are some long parts on it that could be
completely
discarded...

>>crap with Phil Collins and even the Who became a bit "poppy"
 
> FD, one of their worst albums (the other being AQO, and it's no coincidence
> both are very Pop albums).

Yeah. As I said, I love "You Better You Bet". It's one of my favourite
pop rock
songs (the other being the Yes song "Love Will Find a Way"). But, just
like
Yes, Genesis, etc, they abandoned their previous model...
 
>> King Crimson never gave up creating complex and imaginative music.
> Very true. As with Neil Young, they are musicians who never bowed to
> commerciality.

Yes. Lots of people say that Robert Fripp is an asshole. Maybe he is, I
don't know.
But I thank him for never using King Crimson's name in vain. He always
preferred
to do other things on his solo career or side projects (I never heard
anything
from "The League of Gentlemen", but I heard people saying it was really
crap).
 
> the first song that sounds like what's called HM nowadays, to me, is the
> beatles'
> Helter Skelter)

> Consider two points: 1) The Who live were a LOT heavier than in the studio,
> and 2) HS was, according to McCartney, influenced by I Can See For Miles.

Yes, the two sentences above are completely true, it's undeniable. But,
this
doesen't change the fact that, the first song that sounds like today's
HM,
to me, is Helter Skelter. It was influenced by I Can See For Miles (if i
recall, Paul wanted to make something "nastier" then that song, which
was
the heaviest thing he had heard by that time), but ICSFM doesn't sound
like HM...
 
> I love the Moody Blues (up to 7thS), but really all they did was Sgt.
> Pepper's over and over.

I always say that the Beatles were more important than MB to a prog-fan
guy that just hate the Beatles and The Who more than anything on earth,
but he keeps saying that not just MB were important to prog-rock
creation,
but that they, alone, were responsible for the creation of the style.
To me, they were important, but a handful of other bands, including
Beatles
and The Who, were responsible for that too...
 
> You're focusing too hard on the details. Musically, The Kinks are closer to
> Punk (YRGM, ADAAOTN) but AAA is certainly the Punk attitude, and "I hope I
> die before I get old" should be the Punk oath of office, and plenty of songs
> like So Sad, Disguises, Pictures Of Lily for three include the Punk sound.
> MG, Substitute, and TKAA too, really. But more than anything else, The Who
> were the aggressive, powerful, "fuck you" band instead of the "I really luv
> you gurl" British standard that even The Stones fell prey to...and it's this
> smash-you-in-your-face image that invented Punk. The Troggs, another Mod
> band, also had this in the original WIld Thing...you can hear it...and in A
> Girl Like You.

I think that the answer to all of that is:
When we talk about attitude, The Who was definitely a punk band.
Musically, The Who definitely wasn't.

We were just focusing on different approaches. I think the above
senteces
settles the discussion...
 
>>Maybe he would sound very good on, say, "Red". But what about on "Frame
>>By Frame"? "Fracture"?
 
> I'm not familiar with them, but I have faith in Moon. Perhaps the others
> would have had to adapt a bit.

If they did, then the 80's King Crimson would be spoiled...
 
>>But when we talk about musical impact, I don't think that any PJ album
>>was more important than what Rush did. Not even comes close.
 
> Keep in mind that I have seen no impact from Rush. I think the sheer emotion
> in the vocals, the cut to the core honesty of feeling, the pain in the
> words...that makes Ten essential. Few albums have this, even by The Who.

Well, but I see musical impact from Rush. Of course it's completely
different
from The Who, just because the bands were different. But, just like The
Who
were very influential on rock'n'roll, Rush was very influential on
hard/prog.
More than that: Neil Peart's influence on drummers is comparable to
Moon.
If you ask for today's drummers for their influences, it's likely that
Moon
and Peart will have a very near number of answers.

 
>>"Synthesized sterility" is a bit vague, isn't it?
 
> Not to me. A certain amount of synth is going to sound sterile. When I
> listen to 80's music, I hear it now (didn't so much then). There's more of
> an honesty in real instruments, at least to me.

To me the real honesty is to play anything right. Sequenced synthesizers
and
drums to me are crap. But real instrumentists playing electronic
keyboards or
electronic drum kits can be as good or better than others playing "real"
instruments. I'd rather hear Bill Bruford playing his electric kit than
any
average drummer playing an acoustic set.
 
>> So, does it mean that
>>Rush, ELP and dance music are all alike?
> No, but ELP didn't use the synth the same way as Rush and dance music has no
> soul at all.

Saying that a band had no soul is a very personal opinion.
I used to say that jazz music, as a whole, didn't have "heart", "soul",
"feeling",
etc. As I started to have more contact with it, I discovered that this
kind of
commentary just didn't make sense...
 
> Don't you notice how D&D is a very precision band, unlike The Who but much
> like Rush? No variation, the cymbal right on cue, and so on. And that's what
> drives me crazy about bands like Kansas and Journey...they're too fucking
> perfect. I'll take a bit of adventure, please. Perfection gets boring, at
> least to me.

There are tons of "precision" bands before and after rush. Rock as a
whole is
a very "precision" kind of music. Few bands (The Who is one of them)
used more
variations on rhythm. By the way, Rush did. The acentuation variations
that
Peart did on rush songs (this can be seen on "Exit... Stage Left"), was
not
common on rock music.
 
> Not around here. Anyway, if it's easy to find a Moon-like drummer why have
> our boys struggled oh these many years before getting the good Zak Starkey,
> who is still no Keith Moon? One would think they could have, but instead
> they went through two professional but unsuitable ones and even used a drum
> machine for a song.

That's because every instrumentist wants to blend other things to his
style.
What would be the meaning if Zak just memorized exactly the same lines
that
Moon played with the who? It's possible to do, but I think that Zak
would
be terribly bored not to do anything on his own style.

Jeff House wrote:

> After all this Prog talk has got me wondering.  Where do you see The Who
> gettting Progressive?  Rael, Relax, Tommy?

Tommy's overture is definitely a prog song.
There's much more to it, but it's the first thing that comes to my mind
:)

Scott Schrade wrote:
> We all know QUADROPHENIA is just the most perfect piece
> of music & medication ever created, but I'm interested in knowing
> what some of you think is the album's *weakest* track.  I'd honestly
> have to say "Love, Reign O'er Me" gets that 'prize.'  Maybe "Sea &
> Sand" but I kinda like "Sea & Sand."

That's interesting, I just love "Love Reign O'er Me"!
By the way, it has a prog feel too...