Looking forward to it!!!! :D

I allegedly have video of The Shaggs on my hard drive right now. I'm trying to find the right codec to play the %@%@$# thing!! :p

The Shaggs weren't exactly The Beatles but I like them. They're like aliens who put on girl costumes and picked up instruments so we wouldn't fear them, not realizing what they were doing wasn't quite... right... because to them it all sounds the same.

*I* fear The Shaggs - their costumes didn't work! That's cool you have footage of them - I think I have seen a clip of them once. I was very excited to get The Shaggs' Own Thing (was there any other more approrpriate album title???) a few years back, simply because I love that kind of fear. As I recall, DeeAnn hadn't heard them before. I think I should make her hear it again very, very soon. Ah, crud - she's reading this thread, so now she'll know. Oh, well. I used to have a copy of Philosophy of the World in the early 80's - don't know what I did with it, but imagine it was sold to buy food or for money for a show or something.

If you don't mind, I may steal this description of them for later use. It's very, very accurate.

Wow, that's great because I've been working on a Mingus Fun Explosion!!
That's gonna rock!

What codec is that Shaggs video? If you need bandwidth to share it, I've got a server here in the house. :D

?????? Why are they more silly than artistic or musical? Have you listened to any Genesis albums? Can you define for me specifically how they are not "musical"?
Geez, I can't wait for this.

Well, Genesis was musical enough to get Chester Thompson and Darryl Stuermer into the band- must have had something going on. Of course, musicians known mainly for fusion work probably still aren't too impressive to someone who has sipped the heady brew of traditional jazz. Sorry, Traditional Jazz. :D

That's gonna rock!

What codec is that Shaggs video? If you need bandwidth to share it, I've got a server here in the house. :D
I'm trying to figure that out, I'll get back to you. Doesn't play on WMV or DIVX with anything I currently have...

As I recall, DeeAnn hadn't heard them before. I think I should make her hear it again very, very soon.
If I could have packaged my wife's face the first time I played them for her, I could have turned it into a best-selling Halloween mask.

He just left for a bit- but I know where the other Shaggs record is (the one we still have). There are many places in the house where it could be hidden- hehheh...

:D

Well, Genesis was musical enough to get Chester Thompson and Darryl Stuermer into the band- must have had something going on. Of course, musicians known mainly for fusion work probably still aren't too impressive to someone who has sipped the heady brew of traditional jazz. Sorry, Traditional Jazz. :D
Darryl could absolutely smoke at Be-Bop. But not too much session work for a Traditional Jazz Guitarist.

Straight Fusion? I played fusion for a bit-- and my chops are nothing.

Lurch---Talkin' to that guy is like talkin' to a wall. he's been hung up (pun intended) on this Morrison-Iggy thing for two days now. He refuses to concede reasonable points and all in all he don't signify any more than my parrot or lap-dog.

Darryl could absolutely smoke at Be-Bop. But not too much session work for a Traditional Jazz Guitarist.

Oh yeah? I know way less about Darryl than I do Chester. I'm pretty sure he played with Jean Luc Ponty and beyond that I had no idea. I just saw a video of Chester playing in Frank Zappa's band the other day, with George Duke, Ruth Underwood, Tom Fowler and Napoleon Murphy Brock. What a band!!

First off, Icame on to delete my post-couldn't really believe I ran on the way I did..and then to read the kind responses...sniff...
By rhe time of Keep on lovin you Reo was dead. Even before that, their albums gave little hint what the band was like live.,except maybe the double live one. But there was a time very few bands would want to play after them, at least in this neck of the woods...
Don'r know about everybody else, but I"m fascinated by the Ann Arbor-Detroit stuff. Thats oral history man! Maybe the only midwest music scene that actually spawned a slew of national acts. And the diversity...Tell us more, please!! (the pictures were great, by the way. Before its asked-I assume you were out of diapers when you took them?)
That last line was a joke...squonk, if you really find this comical, why aren't you laughing? Its cool, as as been said many times already,,its only rock and roll, but I like (some of) it.. You clearly know your stuff, you're passionate about it, and have given it a lot of thought. So have most of the other posters on this thread. Can't we focus on what we share over where we differ? As a great philosopher once said just before missing a Grant Park gig...different strokes for different folks..or to put it another way...is that a real poncho, or a sears poncho..

I'm also not too sure Iggy was directly influenced to become a front man after seeing The Doors. You went from Morrison being an influence of his (which I believe is correct in regards to the audience baiting - but I also am pretty sure that is not his only influence for what his stage presence was to become), to a statement that conveys that Morrison was the sole reason/influence, whatever for Iggy becoming a front man.




Not sure you know how Wiki works. Your or I or anyone can go change anything at any time. Haven't you noticed the "Edit This Page" tab on the top of each? Click on it and see. There's no one you need to notify.

Also - generally (and I am not talking about this specific item), folks should be a bit careful of what you take out of there as a reference point or even to back up stuff that you have already seen. For instance, on the Iggy page, they talked about how Iggy reformed The Stooges with Mike Watt from Social Distortion. Uh - no - Mike Watt was from The Minutemen, not SocialD. That's since been fixed by someone else, but it was there for quite awhile - it is a sketchy source.





I like them. No need to mock their contribution here. I am sure I am not the only one who enjoyed them.



Well, if someone has heard a direct quote from the actual source about something, you'll now be OK with that? I mean, earlier on, when talking about some of the history of punk and stuff, that wasn't going to be good enough. You at the very least had one guy who was in a band stating some things, and I, who have heard a whole lot of stuff directly from people in bands from the late 70's/early 80's (mostly early 80's, though) - but that wasn't good enough then.



You made it a bit of factual issue by over-stating something.



Hmm - well, within that little circle were the bands themselves. And a lot of my info comes directly from them - from actually talking with these people back then. The problem with what you post is not that you are contributing, but you are telling people they are wrong and providing info that may or may not be right (and sometimes is not right) as absolute hard fact and just jump on anyone that knows a little bit more about it. Because it damages your ego or whatever. And you always try to backtrack, cry foul and say "oh, no one can opine." But you don't either - you again, present stuff as fact. And when people like Tnilsson actually DO opine, you take it as some fact, even if they stated it was meant as an opinion/personal taste. But ya just got to jump on 'em and bully them around a bit, and it is really not necessary. Everyone else in this thread is enjoyable and level-headed.


So if it is now acceptable to you with what you have said regarding Iggy and whether or not he told B. Curry this specific statement - well, then, you should probably recant all of your crazy rants that turned into trolling - because my info comes directly from some of these people who were making the music.
From the DVD Punk Attitude, a film by Don Letts:

QUOTE from John Sinclair, Manager of the MC5:

"I think the transformative experience that happened to Igg, and I was at that show too, was that he saw the Doors"


QUOTE from Wayne Kramer of the MC5:

"Seeing the Doors changed him, they were mesmerized, what they saw in that performance gave them a whole new lease on life."


Do you think those guys are THERE enough for you? Were they in the SCENE enough for you? Are they close enough to Ann Arbor for you? Do the manager and guitarist from one of the godfathers of punk who played in the same town and went to the same exact concert have enough credibility for you?

Oh yeah? I know way less about Darryl than I do Chester. I'm pretty sure he played with Jean Luc Ponty and beyond that I had no idea. I just saw a video of Chester playing in Frank Zappa's band the other day, with George Duke, Ruth Underwood, Tom Fowler and Napoleon Murphy Brock. What a band!!I saw Darryl play with Jean Luc at the UT Music Hall in the later 70's. Ralphie Armstrong was playing bass and I can't remember who played drums.

larry

And here is a quote from Michael Erlewine, Michael was a member of the Prime Movers:

"In fact, over the years, I have wondered about how Iggy could change so drastically from when we knew him. Then I saw a VH1 special on him, which had a lot of footage of him after we knew him. I was looking to see how he had changed, and to my amazement, I could see no change. He was still the old Iggy that we knew, as far as I could tell, and all of the macho stuff was something that he learned to do for effect. That is my opinion, at any rate. "

By the way, this quote is from one of the guys that gave Jimmy the name Iggy.

Dan Eriewine also with the Prime Movers and Michael's brother, builds guitars and has made them for the likes of Albert King, Jerry Garcia, Mike Bloomfield, Ted Nugent, etc. You can see Dan here (http://www.danerlewine.com/). Just an FYI.

What you don't seem to understand is I am not relying on a British journalist/film maker's interpretation of some super 8 film stock from 1978. And I am not just re-telling stories that were pasted on a Wiki quote. My perspective is more than ten years before Letts film and it's from living and working in the same community.

The Stooges were going to happen with or with out the Doors. You really just don get it do you?

Thanks for cleaning up squonk's post PooperScooper.

Its been years since I played Funhouse, so my memory may be faulty. But I don't remember listening to "Loose" and thinking, "oh yeah, sounds like Jim Morrison". Jagger maybe, on a lot of drugs. Course I was only listening, not reading about it-so what do I know?

And here is a quote from Michael Erlewine, Michael was a member of the Prime Movers:

"In fact, over the years, I have wondered about how Iggy could change so drastically from when we knew him. Then I saw a VH1 special on him, which had a lot of footage of him after we knew him. I was looking to see how he had changed, and to my amazement, I could see no change. He was still the old Iggy that we knew, as far as I could tell, and all of the macho stuff was something that he learned to do for effect. That is my opinion, at any rate. "

By the way, this quote is from one of the guys that gave Jimmy the name Iggy.

Dan Eriewine also with the Prime Movers and Michael's brother, builds guitars and has made them for the likes of Albert King, Jerry Garcia, Mike Bloomfield, Ted Nugent, etc. You can see Dan here (http://www.danerlewine.com/). Just an FYI.

What you don't seem to understand is I am not relying on a British journalist/film maker's interpretation of some super 8 film stock from 1978. And I am not just re-telling stories that were pasted on a Wiki quote. My perspective is more than ten years before Letts film and it's from living and working in the same community.

The Stooges were going to happen with or with out the Doors. You really just don get it do you?

Thanks for cleaning up squonk's post PooperScooper.
You are frickin unbelievable. Those are quotes from members of the MC5 themselves. Are you going to ignore those too?? I don't care if you were cleaning Iggy's toilets, why can't you accept the FACT that the Doors and Morrison were a DIRECT major influence on Iggy Pop? Are you telling me that the members of the MC5 are wrong too? Or, what, are they lying? Or is it that you know more about music than them? They were THERE. They went to the same concerts. They played together. They partied together. I think they qualify as a pretty good source, combined with the interviews I have seen Iggy himself cite Morrison's direct influence. Oh, that's right--you don't consider Iggy's own words credible either. So if you have any more problems, go find Iggy, Kramer and Sinclair and take your silly blathering to them. They will most likely laugh and ask if you're done cleaning thier crapper yet.

Now, go back and get that shinebox.

Oh yeah? I know way less about Darryl than I do Chester. I'm pretty sure he played with Jean Luc Ponty and beyond that I had no idea. I just saw a video of Chester playing in Frank Zappa's band the other day, with George Duke, Ruth Underwood, Tom Fowler and Napoleon Murphy Brock. What a band!!
Went to college up in Milwaukee in the late 80s. That's also when I was playing in the clubs. Very small but vibrant music scene there. Just about everybody plays with everybody at some point it seems. I never played with him, but the singer/bass player of my band did-- awesome be-bop sax player-- does rap now under the name Def Harmonic (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0009LO8OY/sr=8-1/qid=1143321263/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-3996447-9395351?%5Fencoding=UTF8). Darryl was also the first guitar teacher for the other guitarist in my old band (www.bellrobert.com).

Its been years since I played Funhouse, so my memory may be faulty. But I don't remember listening to "Loose" and thinking, "oh yeah, sounds like Jim Morrison". Jagger maybe, on a lot of drugs. Course I was only listening, not reading about it-so what do I know?

I just picked up a first pressing of Funhouse for 50 cents a couple of weeks ago. Nice! Yeah, I've never heard a lot of Doors influence in their stuff, either, but that's just me. And just me listening to it.

No one has said that Iggy Pop and the Stooges tried to copy the sound of the Doors or try to sound like them. No one.

You just can't fix stupid.

Originally Posted by squonk
You just can't fix stupid.
Amen Brother!

No one has said that Iggy Pop and the Stooges tried to copy the sound of the Doors or try to sound like them. No one. You just can't fix stupid.

First off, not everyone is addressing you at all times, no matter how much that might hurt. However, you did say very recently, "why can't you accept the FACT that the Doors and Morrison were a DIRECT major influence on Iggy Pop?"

I think it is reasonable to take that to mean not only stage presence (with the inclusion of the band in the statement), but also musically. And if you didn't know, musical influences often do not mean "copying" or "sounding like" but incorporating *some* of what the band was doing. Or were you trying to say that Manzarek, for instance, really influenced Iggy's stage presence, too?

And I still haven't heard any recanting of the rants that I mentioned... So I guess you were being facetious when you said you'd take stuff direct from the performers/musicians/whatever. Of course, that was phrased in the case of Iggy specifically, but if it would have been good enough in that case, it should be in all.

Influence can definitely mean many things. It can mean something as little as "Seeing so and so influenced me to get into music"- which can be very important to a career, obviously, and have nothing at all to do with the sound or direction one takes. And one can like and be influenced, as Lurch points out, in direct musical ways that still do not turn up directly in ones sound. Yes was influenced by the harmonies of the Beach Boys- you can kind of tell in their early stuff but it's not a conclusion that you would necessarily leap to hearing their music if you didn't know. And Chris Squire has said he was influenced by the style of Motown and James Jamerson, yet his bass style is almost diametrically opposed to that. So yeah, the words "influenced by" leave room for a lot of interpretation.

This is a fun link if you would like to look at some of more of the Detroit Rock n’ Roll past. It has some concert posters, performance line ups, and listings by year. It is by no means inclusive, not even the tip of the ice burgh.

The initial link is to 1967. Scroll to the bottom and you will see on November 22, 1967 at Southfield High School The Who and two local bands The Unrelated Segments and the Amboy Dukes. This type of show with two or three bands in a small hall was quite common at the time. Click here (http://www.motorcitymusicarchives.com/assorted1967.html).

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g247/BobCurry/untitled.jpg

Stooges poster form 1969.
You can see they were playing a Jr. High School in Ann Arbor.

This is a fun link if you would like to look at some of more of the Detroit Rock n’ Roll past. It has some concert posters, performance line ups, and listings by year. It is by no means inclusive, not even the tip of the ice burgh.
Awesome link. Thanks!

Here are some posters from 1977 Los Angeles: http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Punk/xerox.htm

Here are some great photos from Jenny Lens: http://www.jennylens.net/

Here's a "live show database" from LA: http://flipsidefanzine.com/Liveshowhome.html

Wow... Beach Boys and Buffalo Springfield...followed 5 days later by the Who and the Dukes...suddenly I'm very P.O. at where my parents chose to live. I remember SRC too..were they the ones that did a version of In the Hall of the Mountain KIng, or was that another Michigan band?( and no, I'm not talking about the James Gang version). That had to spoil you for life, curry, I mean having all that music there, just assuming it would always be that way...
I remember seeing Nugent right after he dropped the Dukes name, in the Armory in Rockford. By that time he was a virtual unknown and it looked like he was doomed to obsurity, playing JTTCOTM for eternity...he opened with a new song, a little number called Stranglehold... we all know what happened after that.. playing with him was this detroit guy who also had one hit to his name, a few years before. He had just recorded a live album at Coho, was hoping it would do well..Bob Segar... I think it was 5 bucks to see the two of them, and I've always been amused by that. In 6 months they were 2 of the biggest acts in rock. One of the greatest shows I've ever seen, and now I realize it would have been a slow weekend for you in Michigan. Color me green...

And Fred, not that you need my praise, but that was a great post about "infuence" and how it can be so difficult to pin down. Of course I wasn't trying to say that The Stooges sounded like the doors. Only if the doors were such a big influence it should show up in their music somewheres. But you're right, sometimes what went into creating something new can be hard to spot..and sometimes it don't really matter, does it? As long as it makes you want to do a nasty on the white house lawn, its still rock and roll...

Yes, that was SRC with Hall of the Mountain Kings. One of my favorite bands still today. They signed with Capitol Records about the same time as Segar. Some of the members live down the road from me now. They we an interesting band working in an art rock progressive area, think Pretty Things or Procol Harum. The sound was focused around a Hammond B3 and Les Paul guitar by the Quackenbush brothers. Maybe something Fred would be interested in. I can post some more information if you like.

The live album was at Cobo Hall, Coho is the fish. ;)

Edit: The buzz is Segar will have a new album this year. He still lives here and sails in the Mackinaw races.

The live album was at Cobo Hall, Coho is the fish. ;)

.

You can't fix stupid! :)

I feel old. I was at some of those shows on that site. Great post b curry.

Yes it's hard to believe how much was going on in southeast Michigan at that point in time.

There is a poster on the sight above, that has the Ike & Tina Turner Review with SRC at the University of Detroit, 1971. Can you imagine any place having two completely opposite types of groups at the same show today?

Another poster on the '71 page, Hill Auditorium on U of M Campus with Pink Floyd on Thursday, Parliament Funkadelic on Friday and Quicksilver on Saturday.

They really were the good old days.

Maybe something Fred would be interested in. I can post some more information if you like.


You bet!! Post it!!

And I still haven't heard any recanting of the rants that I mentioned... So I guess you were being facetious when you said you'd take stuff direct from the performers/musicians/whatever. Of course, that was phrased in the case of Iggy specifically, but if it would have been good enough in that case, it should be in all.


Why would I need to recant anything? I have provided you factual information and all I've heard back in return is "no, I don't agree, I was around the SCENE man". Let me know when you come up with some specific factual information to prove anything I stated definitively wrong. It is apparantly you and guys of your "ilk" that refuse to acknowledge direct quotes from performers/musicians who were directly involved, including quotes/interviews from the person at issue themselves!

I have provided direct quotes from MC5 band members who have both cited the Doors as a direct major influence on Iggy, sourced from a DVD on punk rock. When I see something comparably sourced, footnoted so we know where it came from, that states that Iggy was NOT in any way ever influenced by Morrison and the Doors, I will only then reconsider recanting anything I said.

Why would I need to recant anything? I have provided you factual information and all I've heard back in return is "no, I don't agree, I was around the SCENE man". Let me know when you come up with some specific factual information to prove anything I stated definitively wrong. It is apparantly you and guys of your "ilk" that refuse to acknowledge direct quotes from performers/musicians who were directly involved, including quotes/interviews from the person at issue themselves!

Hmm, as far as the punk side goes, I have specifically avoided posting the people I have personally spoken with/hung out with in the early 80's as it might come off as snobby or name-dropping. But if I did, would *THAT* even make you understand?

I have provided direct quotes from MC5 band members who have both cited the Doors as a direct major influence on Iggy, sourced from a DVD on punk rock. When I see something comparably sourced, footnoted so we know where it came from, that states that Iggy was NOT in any way ever influenced by Morrison and the Doors, I will only then reconsider recanting anything I said.


BTW: I am referring to this quote from you, "did he (Iggy) tell you--NO, MORRISON DID NOT INFLUENCE ME? If so, I will defer to your obviously first hand experience and stand corrected." If this works in relation to Iggy, it should work for the punk references that you were stating as "wrong."

Why would I need to recant anything? I have provided you factual information and all I've heard back in return is "no, I don't agree, I was around the SCENE man". Let me know when you come up with some specific factual information to prove anything I stated definitively wrong. It is apparantly you and guys of your "ilk" that refuse to acknowledge direct quotes from performers/musicians who were directly involved, including quotes/interviews from the person at issue themselves!

Oh, and... funny how a lot of my info comes actually FIRST hand from the people in bands who were involved. Not from documentaries. Not from printed interviews. Not from being at parties. Ah, I don't remember all of what you said, and I am too lazy to look it all up. But I have tried to subtly convey this in the past by referring to "being around the bands" and comments like that.

that almost bubblegum Farfisa organ sound of the Doors didn't exhibit too much in the way of musicianship OR seriousness.


that farfisa organ sound as Mr Brennan has pointed out was a staple of many garage rock bands of the 60's and is one reason I love those 60's garage rock records (Blues Magoos, the Medallions, Strawberry Alarm Clock etc). Ramm I know you seem not to like "pop" songs that had chart success, but I'd highly encourage you to check out the Nuggets box set--full of one hit wonder gems and a lot of the music that directly influenced punk of the 70s. That same 'simple' organ sound shows up later in bands like The Modern Lovers (check out Roadrunner) and Elvis Costello (Radio Radio), and even later becomes the staple sound of a band like Stereolab.

Also don't think you're giving the Doors a fair shake re musicianship and seriousness. Manzarek's organ playing in songs like Light My Fire, Riders on the Storm, When the Music's Over etc is no slouch. And you seem to be dissing the Doors because they had pop singles, yet you are ignoring their longer songs, see above and stuff like The End, and their blues influenced stuff (Back Door Man, Roadhouse Blues). Most of the time people who like to criticize the Doors claim they were trying to be too serious, so I guess the truth probably lies somewhere inbetween. Not sure why you wouldn't like some of their stuff as there is clearly some stuff that is very progressive oriented, especially in those longer tunes and the mystical psychedelic lyrics. The Doors are already in the RR HOF by the way, one of the early inductees(93 or 94).

But if I did, would *THAT* even make you understand?


Understand what? Tell me something specific that I said that you believe is completely false, and back it up with as many sources as you like. So far I have not heard any fact stated that is a direct refutation of any specific thing that I said. All I keep hearing is--we were near the SCENE man and a lot of vague stuff about bands you hung with. Great. Tell me something specific I said that is false. We're 15 pages into this and still---nothing.

By the way, be careful about how adamant you are that you HAD to be IN the scene DIRECTLY in order to have credibility or be allowed to state facts or opinions re punk rock. In so limiting the requirements, you may in the process take down a whole lot of younger posters on this topic who will have to admit they were only in diapers when the SCENE was happening, and who have gleaned most of thier knowledge from reading and listening to records, as most of us have of course. Of course, then again, you still haven't defined the SCENE exactly nor defined exactly where it was and the time span it lasted. So you are in serious danger of cutting a lot of people out--but that's why I want you to specifically define the parameters which you have not done going on 2 weeks now.

Understand what? Tell me something specific that I said that you believe is completely false, and back it up with as many sources as you like. So far I have not heard any fact stated that is a direct refutation of any specific thing that I said. All I keep hearing is--we were near the SCENE man and a lot of vague stuff about bands you hung with. Great. Tell me something specific I said that is false. We're 15 pages into this and still---nothing.

You said Tom was wrong when he really wasn't. I have said this over and over. I mean, I know you like to go around starting fights, but keep up with the threads where you have done this in. Yeah, Tom told me it's like talking to a wall - but what the heck. I have actually hung out with people in bands - many of whom you would know by name (the people, not the bands), and some you might need google to figure out, but then would say, "oh" about.

By the way, be careful about how adamant you are that you HAD to be IN the scene DIRECTLY in order to have credibility or be allowed to state facts or opinions re punk rock. In so limiting the requirements, you may in the process take down a whole lot of younger posters on this topic who will have to admit they were only in diapers when the SCENE was happening, and who have gleaned most of thier knowledge from reading and listening to records, as most of us have of course. Of course, then again, you still haven't defined the SCENE exactly nor defined exactly where it was and the time span it lasted. So you are in serious danger of cutting a lot of people out--but that's why I want you to specifically define the parameters which you have not done going on 2 weeks now.

I have only been adamant in relation to you who likes to refute everything if it doesn't match up to what you have read or your own experiences from buying a record here and there. Most of those who you reference here who I know (and at this stage, there are far too many that make me feel far too old as it is) are very, very interested in my first hand accounts of what was going on at the time and the feelings the people conveyed. But then again, they are interested in what was going on at the time. Yeah, they tend to take those first-hand experiences from someone they know over other stuff. So it is actually the opposite of what you convey. Of course, this is mostly OFF the internet, and actual face-to-face communication, which I tend to prefer... But again, this is not a problem. It does not cut people off, and if you feel this way, it is not fully accurate. I suppose some folks out there (particularly on the internet) might feel this way - if they do, well, it won't keep me up at night if so.

You said Tom was wrong when he really wasn't.


Prove that he wasn't wrong. For the 30th time, My position is that punk rock was a reaction to a wide variety of music ranging from jam bands like the Grateful Dead and psychedelic music of the 60s to the long guitar solos and rock star excesses of bands like Led Zeppelin, to the cartoon excesses of Alice Cooper and KISS, to singer songwriter lite fair such as Simon and Garfunkel and the Carpenters, to slick AOR 'produced' rock like the Eagles, to later the disco crap of the mid to late 70s, and not JUST PROGRESSIVE ROCK. Yes, it was also a reaction to the long extended complexity and emphasis on "musicianship" of prog. But not all of it was just a reaction to Yes and ELP and bands of that "ilk", unless now someone is going to try to backtrack and try to imply that he meant "ilk" to include all these differing types of bands and music as the same thing, when we all know he was not. And of course then he would be wrong for yet another reason, since no one in their right mind would lump Grateful Dead, Zeppelin, KISS, the Carpenters, the Eagles, Simon and Garfunkel, Yes, ELP and Foreigner in the same group. The statement made was an oversimplification based on a false stereotype, and thus the need was there to be more specific and correct the oversimplification. That's why the statement was wrong.

PUNK ROCK WAS NOT JUST or SOLELY A REACTION TO PROGRESSIVE ROCK has been my position from day one. PROVE to me that that statement is false. And cite every punk friend you have in doing so, but I want to hear specific quotes with footnotes citing the sources.

Prove that he wasn't wrong. For the 30th time, My position is that punk rock was a reaction to a wide variety of music ranging from jam bands like the Grateful Dead and psychedelic music of the 60s to the long guitar solos and rock star excesses of bands like Led Zeppelin, to the cartoon excesses of Alice Cooper and KISS, to singer songwriter lite fair such as Simon and Garfunkel and the Carpenters, to slick AOR 'produced' rock like the Eagles, to later the disco crap of the mid to late 70s, and not JUST PROGRESSIVE ROCK.

Tom did not say it was just progressive rock - you did in your "you're wrong" post.

Yes, it was also a reaction to the long extended complexity and emphasis on "musicianship" of prog. But not all of it was just a reaction to Yes and ELP and bands of that "ilk", unless now someone is going to try to backtrack and try to imply that he meant "ilk" to include all these differing types of bands and music as the same thing

He originally did this by including bands such as Foreigner and a couple of others. I guess NOW you understand what that inclusion meant, despite your insistence he meant "progressive rock" even though he didn't say that?


when we all know he was not.

Yeah - that's actually pretty much just you.


And of course then he would be wrong for yet another reason, since no one in their right mind would lump Grateful Dead, Zeppelin, KISS, the Carpenters, the Eagles, Simon and Garfunkel, Yes, ELP and Foreigner in the same group.

Oh really. I know plenty of people that would. That's all all kinds of crappy music, to many people (disclaimer: for what you listed here, me, too - although I did recently find out that I *mostly* like the first KISS album upon my first "listen to" of it).


The statement made was an oversimplification based on a false stereotype, and thus the need was there to be more specific and correct the oversimplification. That's why the statement was wrong.

No, you just didn't understand it.

PUNK ROCK WAS NOT JUST or SOLELY A REACTION TO PROGRESSIVE ROCK has been my position from day one.

To type to you in your language: NO ONE HAS SAID IT WAS. At least that I recall. You are the one that likes to introduce the term (progressive rock) when folks are talking about a wider variety of bands that were deemed cruddy by some. A big sticking poitn with you.


PROVE to me that that statement is false. And cite every punk friend you have in doing so, but I want to hear specific quotes with footnotes citing the sources.

Now that's silly. Footnotes. Tell me the footnotes from the latest verbal conversation you've had. Or any of them. You know, where people actually talk to each other without a computer or keyboard. See - you're in the mindset of something someone wrote. And that's where you claim you'll accept it, but then backtrack because if it wasn't printed or on a website somewhere... well, that appears to be the depth of your experience. And now we've come just about full circle, at least back to where you started getting nasty.

So since you could care less about name dropping apparently, please tell me all of the people from bands that you have personally talked to that conveyed a sense of what was going on. Not documentaries. Not interviews. Not just friends, but from bands who were actually involved. Ya know, who have ya spent any amount of time with. Please. Do.

[QUOTE]Tom did not say it was just progressive rock - you did in your "you're wrong" post.

He said bands of that "ilk". Anyone following along, reading the context of the posts, knows what he was trying to state/imply with the admittedly ridiculous word "ilk"



He originally did this by including bands such as Foreigner and a couple of others. I guess NOW you understand what that inclusion meant, despite your insistence he meant "progressive rock" even though he didn't say that?

He lumped some bands (Foreigner/Boston) in with completely different bands (Yes/ELP) clearly trying to label them under the same umbrella, within the context of pages of discussion about progressive rock, thus using the oversimplification term of "that ilk"




Oh really. I know plenty of people that would. That's all all kinds of crappy music, to many people (disclaimer: for what you listed here, me, too - although I did recently find out that I *mostly* like the first KISS album upon my first "listen to" of it).

Oh I see, so now "all that ilk" just mean "music I think is crappy". Gee, that's nice and specific. So now we've gone from bands that are similar to Yes and ELP (when they clearly are not) to all bands I think are crappy.

So punk rock was a reaction to all bands that Tom Brennan thinks were crappy. Gee, how can you argue with that absurdity?


No, you just didn't understand it.

I understood it perfectly--bands of that ilk meant bands that Tom Brennan thought were progressive rock bands, or belonged under the same "ilk"
But now its apparantly a moving target, or you are trying to redefine it and includes ANY crappy band according to TB (or you, I guess). So now this has officially become the dumbest argument in human history.



Now that's silly.

You said it.


So since you could care less about name dropping apparently, please tell me all of the people from bands that you have personally talked to that conveyed a sense of what was going on. Not documentaries. Not interviews. Not just friends, but from bands who were actually involved. Ya know, who have ya spent any amount of time with. Please. Do

Are you getting dizzy from chasing your tail? I never said I was in the SCENE and all knowing because I hung around bands--YOU DID. And you still have yet to point out anything specific I said that was wrong and you have yet to cite any source, other than--I hung around the scene. What a joke. And now none of that matters because on behalf of TB you just changed the meaning of the absurd word he used anyway--"ilk" now means "any crappy band in my opinion". So how can anyone argue with that? I have ears and eyes. I can hear and read. I didn't break into Watergate but I know a heckuva lot about the whole Watergate scandal. I guess according to you, the only people that possibly could state any facts or opinions re Watergate would be those who were actually involved in the break in and coverup.

In sum, punk rock was a reaction to every crappy band in the world (according to Tom Brennan) and thus, ie all punk bands were good and there was never a crappy punk band. And "ilk" now does not mean anything in the same genre, but anything someone doesn't like. Gee, aren't we all smarter now?

You can't fix stupid.

He lumped some bands (Foreigner/Boston) in with completely different bands (Yes/ELP) clearly trying to label them under the same umbrella, within the context of pages of discussion about progressive rock, thus using the oversimplification term of "that ilk"

You're wrong.

Oh I see, so now "all that ilk" just mean "music I think is crappy". Gee, that's nice and specific. So now we've gone from bands that are similar to Yes and ELP (when they clearly are not) to all bands I think are crappy.

Now yer just starting to catch on - although it wasn't just a "I think" situation, but a general notion of them. If you didn't understand that, then that goes back to what I was originally saying about you "just not getting it."

So punk rock was a reaction to all bands that Tom Brennan thinks were crappy. Gee, how can you argue with that absurdity?

Nope - as I mentioned, lots of people.


I understood it perfectly--bands of that ilk meant bands that Tom Brennan thought were progressive rock bands, or belonged under the same "ilk"
But now its apparantly a moving target, or you are trying to redefine it and includes ANY crappy band according to TB (or you, I guess).

You're wrong. Ilk: "SORT, KIND" - as defined by Merriam Webster. So *you* decided that "sort, kind" was meant to refer to Yes, Kansas, and Foreigner as the same *genre* - no one else, necessarily. In fact, by mixing genres that should indicate that to readers. Well, most readers anyway.


So now this has officially become the dumbest argument in human history.

You're wrong (if you think something on one of thousands or more internet forums would be a milestone in human history, anyway).


Are you getting dizzy from chasing your tail? I never said I was in the SCENE and all knowing because I hung around bands--YOU DID.

Really... Maybe you should re-read your posts where you are talking about parties and seeing bands, so you were there and knew all. Unless that was sarcasm and you weren't actually.

And now none of that matters because on behalf of TB you just changed the meaning of the absurd word he used anyway--"ilk" now means "any crappy band in my opinion".

You betcha. I think I have pointed out where you were wrong, too. And at the same time, you are sort of arguing against yourself here. Do I need to repeat your very recent quote: "punk rock was a reaction to a wide variety of music ranging from jam bands like the Grateful Dead and psychedelic music of the 60s to the long guitar solos and rock star excesses of bands like Led Zeppelin, to the cartoon excesses of Alice Cooper and KISS, to singer songwriter lite fair such as Simon and Garfunkel and the Carpenters, to slick AOR 'produced' rock like the Eagles, to later the disco crap of the mid to late 70s" - oh, I guess I did. I think that you meant, crappy bands in the eyes of punks. So you do get it, perchance?


I didn't break into Watergate but I know a heckuva lot about the whole Watergate scandal. I guess according to you, the only people that possibly could state any facts or opinions re Watergate would be those who were actually involved in the break in and coverup.

Nope - but for facts, wouldn't they certainly be the best dang source around? Oh, I guess not, according to you. And anyone can make opinions - that's mixing things up.

In sum, punk rock was a reaction to every crappy band in the world (according to Tom Brennan) and thus, ie all punk bands were good and there was never a crappy punk band. And "ilk" now does not mean anything in the same genre, but anything someone doesn't like. Gee, aren't we all smarter now?

Not according to Tom, but a prevailing notion. But I take it all back if you think a lot of punk bands worshipped Foreigner and Boston... And the attributed logic of "all punk bands were good" does not seem to really fit into this. Now you're really reachin'.

You can't fix stupid.

At this point, does this even need to be addressed?

[QUOTE]Now yer just starting to catch on - although it wasn't just a "I think" situation, but a general notion of them. If you didn't understand that, then that goes back to what I was originally saying about you "just not getting it."


Oh goodie, more 'specifics'. "of that ilk" and now "general notion". Another vague nonspecific term which means nothing and is used by people who are absolutely stating nothing and spouting BS. So "ilk" now means a general notion by 'them' (which apparantly refers to some vague collection of punk rockers I guess--more indefiniteness) of bands that are crappy. Gee, I didn't realize that all people who like punk rock think exactly alike. Are you trying to tell me that there was basic unaminity by all punk rockers in the still undefined SCENE on which bands were crappy? Did you not have any free thinking individualists who also liked punk rock among you at all? Gee, I find that hard to believe, and if true, really kind of sad and disturbing. So not one punker could be found in the 70s who liked a little Dead? Not one who snuck a few listens to Zeppelin now and then? Not one who may have dug the Allman Brothers? or Traffic? Who decided what that "ilk" was? What if one person's "ilk" didn't coincide with another persons "ilk"? Or were you all that single-minded in thought?



Nope - as I mentioned, lots of people.

I see, so it wasn't just one person's opinion of what constituted crap, it was "lots of people". Another nice vague generalization. Is that "lots of people" constitute all those who bought and listened to punk records and went to shows? How big a tent was lots of people? Again--undefined. Oh wait. I would be included in that, because I was there, I bought records that were defined as "punk" and I went to shows. So I apparantly was part of the lots of people who determined what music was crappy. But wait--I liked Yes and ELP. I wasn't a bid Dead fan, but I liked some of their stuff. Hated KISS. Liked some Zeppelin. Didn't care for Foreigner. And I liked the Ramones, Talking Heads, Jonathan Richman and the Modern Lovers, the Clash, some Patti Smith, etc. So my OPINIONS on what constituted crap differed from other people's opinions on what was crap. And there were plenty of people like me, who, believe it or not, like some punk music and didn't necessarily agree on what constituted crap. Ahhhh, and now we get to the true crux of this.

You portray this whole idea of what punk was a reaction against (ie all bands that were crap) as if it were some commonly accepted ABSOLUTE FACT that can be quantitatively proven, and can only be proven by consulting with the only ones in the know--those in the SCENE as YOU define it. You base this whole silly argument
of yours that punk was a reaction against all the crappy bands as if that were some absolute commonly agreed list that all persons who are in the KNOW (ie people YOU think are in the know) UNIVERSALLY agree on. as if "Crap" can be quantified and categorized. What we really have is just opinion heaped on opinion---there are NO FACTS that can be proven here. Its your opinion as to what bands are crappy, and its your pre-ordained list of who is in this vague SCENE that gets to apparantly universally agree on what that list is--as if that were possible. And anyone who might like punk but also like some of the bands that YOU define as crappy cannot possibly count in terms of what gets considered crappy--since you get to define also who is in the SCENE (ie in the know) and who isn't. Wow, that's quite a little self serving system you have going there.

What it really amounts to is that there were a whole lot of us out there listening to and enjoying various forms of punk music that at the same time also liked other forms of music, including music that YOU may have thought was crappy. And guess what--at the time we were listening to this music in the 70's, not everyone who bought a Ramones album or a Modern Lovers album were thinking--this is punk and I'm buying this because Yes and the Carpenters and Zeppelin is all crap. Some of us just listened to music that we liked without the need to define it or categorize it. And that is something apparantly that you never learned to do. This idea that there was some universal agreement by some undefined group of people in the scene as to what constituted crappy music is a big load of BS. Its all opinion and music taste. There are no facts here.

Nice try. I think that's kind of the way Hitler ran Germany didn't he? I and my few hand selected pick of people "in the scene" get to define who is an undesirable for elimination purposes, and that's that. Well, see lurch, some of us are independent free thinking spirits who just like to listen to good music, regardless of category, genre, or "ilk". And yes, some of us like some punk but also like progressive rock like Yes. Believe it or not, if its quality music, it can be liked. And so there is and never has been a universal definition of crappy, since music is by definition personal taste. I know this pains you, because in your little punk fantasy land, there are a small cadre of punk scenesters who are the only truly 'in the know" people, and they and only they get to define what constitutes 'crappy' music (and thus is the music that punk reacted against). Surely by now you can see how silly this is I hope.

So, again, you're wrong. Yours or Tom Brennan's OPINION on what constitutes crappy music is just that--an opinion not a fact. Thus, a statement which purports to define what punk was a reaction against by referencing to what constitutes "crap" cannot be CORRECT since its all an opinion. Which is exactly why I stated he was oversimplifying. Which is why he was wrong. End of story.

Well, now that we got that out of the way...curry, can we hear more about SRC?
Lurch: What first grabbed you about punk? A live band that led you to recordings by bands of similiar styles, or vice versa? And was it a gradual thing-in other words did you have to learn to like it, or did your first exposure hit you like a ton of bricks? Did the love of swing come after or before? Still trying to get a handle on the whole thing so if you're still there..

[QUOTE=lurch4711]

"




















In sum, punk rock was a reaction to every crappy band in the world (according to Tom Brennan) and thus, ie all punk bands were good and there was never a crappy punk band. And "ilk" now does not mean anything in the same genre, but anything someone doesn't like. Gee, aren't we all smarter now?

You can't fix stupid.
You do realize Tom never said anything like that, right? You're basically restating your opinion of what someone said and then arguing with your own words until you win. It must make you feel good but in the process you pretty much killed a good discussion. Oh well...peace.

I don't think punk was a backlash against any type of music, but a backlash or "not for me" reaction to late 60's and early 70's times of flower children and psycho-pharmacuetical (is that a word?) influenced culture. "Peace? Love? Groovy? Wow man?" F**K THAT, TAKE THIS! Sorry, but I don't having anything to cite, it's just my opinion.

larry

Some highlights about SRC.

SRC started out as The Scott Richard Case. The Singer, Scott Richardson came from another local band “Chosen Few”. Ron Ashton, guitarist for the Stooges was also from “Chosen Few”. The band became very popular locally playing the club circuit, local TV and had regional radio success having recorded the Skip James song “I’m So Glad” a bit ahead of the Cream version. They played mostly English Pop and Motown. Bob Segar and The Last Heard had a local hit record “Eastside Story” about this same time frame 1966-67.

The band took their music quite seriously and began to write and changed the name to SRC. There was no Art Rock or Progressive category of music at this time. The bands music was a little metaphysical for the time “psychedelic’ if you will. Probably influenced by Pretty Things, Procol Harum, Hendrix, Cream, etc. Their sound was multi-layered and built around sustained Les Paul guitar and a Hammond B3 organ usually with 2-4 full size Leslie speakers on stage.

The band was also technology orientated and was the first band that I saw mix themselves, in stereo, through the PA system on stage. The PA was a full range system with EV – SRO folded horns on the low end with JBL ring – horns on the high and 10”-12” mids, powered by Crown DC300’s. Keep in mind stereo was still a young format. And at this time most PA's were suit case type collum speakers.

They signed with Capital Records and released three albums (SRC, Milestones, and Travelers Tale) over three years 1968-1970. The band dissolved shortly after this. They also built their own recording studio, an expensive undertaking pre digital.

Scott Richardson moved to California where he is to have wed Robert Mitchum’s daughter. Scott did some work with Ray Manzarek. Scott is also credited with writing the 1987 movie “Hearts of Fire” for Bob Dylan and is also credited in the art department for the “Lord of the Rings” movies.

SRC sound bites here (http://www.humvee.net/src/solos.html).

The song ONESIMPLETASK is interesting in that the lyric are a challenge or riddle and the music changes time signatures, 4/4 -3/4 -5/4, 4/4 etc., to weave a musical puzzle. Mostly guitar solo here, you catch a time change just at the end.

NO SECRET DESTINATION is typical SRC.

There was a Detroit Free Press / Detroit News article a few years ago that claimed that Peter Gabriel was a fan and early Genesis was influenced (almost afraid of that word) by SRC.

Vynal is long out of print but you can find the work reissued on CD.

[QUOTE] F**K THAT, TAKE THIS! Sorry, but I don't having anything to cite, it's just my opinion.

larry

Such language!!! Another post like that, young man, and I'm reporting you to the moderator! :)

I'd better add its a joke...don't ban me larry...:)

If we all just remember to laugh at ourselves and not take everything so seriously we can have a good discussion, methinks.

Its funny, I know I heard quite a lot of SRC way back then, but all I remember is "Mountain King" and being impressed. That, combined with what you've said, curry, has sold me-gotta get me some. Any suggestions? I might just order one blind, see what I get..

Since poor tom was only answering a question I posed, I've got to say I understand exactly what he meant. The bands he mentioned do all have something in common but its really no big deal if one doesn't get it. Surely not worth running on about for 2000 pages (seems that long, anyways). Tom, thanks again for the insight.

Can we just talk about the music for a while? You know, the hit record, with a bullet:

"Imagine me and you...I do...So Happy Together..."

I've heard of SRC but never really have heard the music. I'm really looking forward to checking those samples out!

OK, speaking of: punk, psychedelia, glam, Lee Ving (Fear), Howard Kaylan (via The Turtles and Zappa), Frank's manager who breifly turned movie producer, Lou Reed and all things rock and roll: has anyone here ever seen the movie Get Crazy???

Carl Palmer was far more technical than any of the drummers you mentioned. However, today that crown would have to undeniably go to Akira Jimbo.


Excuse me you never heard of Neil Peart the greatest Rock Drummer of all time.
Find me another Drummer who can do all the things that Neil can do or Maybe you've seen him Live, Fans bow down to him.


TREES ARE ALL KEPT EQUAL BY HATCHET AXE AND SAAAWWWW.

Excuse me you never heard of Neil Peart the greatest Rock Drummer of all time.
Find me another Drummer who can do all the things that Neil can do or Maybe you've seen him Live, Fans bow down to him.
Greatest "rock" drummer? A case could be made for Peart, sure, but that's by no means a universal assessement among drummers.

But greatest drummer, period? That would be Buddy Rich. That's just my opinion, but it's also the opinion of Neil Peart, who's produced two tribute albums to Buddy (Burning for Buddy 1 and 2.)

As for *current* drummers that can do all the things that Neil can do, I'll add Dave Weckl to the list. I'd put Weckl a step (or two) above Peart.

"Excuse me you never heard of Neil Peart the greatest Rock Drummer of all time."

Funny, I've seen Rush many times and never heard Peart play rock and roll. He has technique but so what. I'll take guys like DJ Fontana, Ringo, Charlie Watts, Al Jackson-----cmon, how can anyone rate Peart , as a rock drummer, higher than Jackson?

And the guy that played on "Good Golly Miss Molly" by Little Richard, man I don't know who that drummer was but he could really kick.

Best technical drummer I ever saw was a jazz guy, Les Demerle. I saw Buddy Rich play.

Well, of course they do - they're fans. And I think Larry might be right to some degree. Punk is an excuse to act obnoxious. I don't know if it was the direct result of any kind of backlash to any real kind of musical attitude or type, as much as a societal trend of "in your face" that seems to be getting worse all the time. If anything, I think it's just a reaction to the government and corporate b***s**t that's been more and more prevalent since the 60's, or at least more exposed. Squonk was right on there (as much as some of you might find a reason to argue), as far as that being the case in the U.K. (they of the famous soccer "hooliganism"). It had to do with unemployment issues over there, too. And it seemed to catch on over here. And I'm sure those Reagan years gave it plenty of fuel, too.

Carl Palmer had some great chops but his meter was awful and his taste questionable some of the time. I liked his playing on the first three albums the best. I much prefer Bill Bruford and Alan White- Bill is jazzy and precise, Alan is a rock drummer but has great feel. I think Neil was the best drummer in the world- for Rush. I think Ringo was the best drummer in the world- for The Beatles. I think it's dumb to rate musicians out of context. It's all about the synergy they have with the people they play with. Buddy was probably the best soloist ever, for my money. And since we're on the subject Terry Bozzio can excel in almost any musical surrounding.

If I remember correctly, Palmer was never actually called "great". But he WAS considered the "fastest" drummer at the time, at least in Rock music. And I agree about Bruford - actually I think it's safe to say that he was the best of his day (for Rock,anyway). He certainly is one of the most versatile and definitely has a unique, distinct style and sound. Only other one I can think of that's that distinct in Rock was Moon.

As long as this thread is supposed to be about Genesis, I've got to mention that Phil Collins is somewhat underappreciated as a drummer. I'm sure most people here already know what a fine drummer he actually is, but the general music public doesn't seem to.

I'm sure most people here already know what a fine drummer he actually is, but the general music public doesn't seem to.I think the problem is that to a large degree he forgot as well, when he became a hit making machine. Back in the early days, and with Brand X, the guy was just scary good.

Another overlooked rock drummer with great skills- Ian Paice from Deep Purple. I think he was faster than Palmer. And he can execute the dreaded one handed buzz roll.

"Squonk was right on there (as much as some of you might find a reason to argue), as far as that being the case in the U.K. (they of the famous soccer "hooliganism"). "


Well the English are a violent and piratical race, and a martial one too. And under English control the other inhabitants of the Isles were also most formidable.

I don't mean that as a cut, that's a large part of what made them great. The traits that make a people great in one era can be a pain in the neck in another.

The Sex Pistols were a Flash, a one album wonder, but very very visible. They were a cross where punk meet pop metal. They deffinitely left an impression. Worthy of the RRHOF? Maybe.

"Squonk was right on there (as much as some of you might find a reason to argue), as far as that being the case in the U.K. (they of the famous soccer "hooliganism"). "


Well the English are a violent and piratical race, and a martial one too. And under English control the other inhabitants of the Isles were also most formidable.

I don't mean that as a cut, that's a large part of what made them great. The traits that make a people great in one era can be a pain in the neck in another. And they like to call us "crude".

I think the problem is that to a large degree he forgot as well, when he became a hit making machine. Back in the early days, and with Brand X, the guy was just scary good.

Another overlooked rock drummer with great skills- Ian Paice from Deep Purple. I think he was faster than Palmer. And he can execute the dreaded one handed buzz roll. I guess when you've got enough alimony and child support to pay, your priorities change. And from recent news, he's gonna have even more. Expect more repackages and comeback "hits".

I guess when you've got enough alimony and child support to pay, your priorities change. And from recent news, he's gonna have even more. Expect more repackages and comeback "hits".

That's the cynical answer- probably some truth to it though. Also, the same thing happened to Genesis as a whole. As a band matures it's easy to feel you have nothing left to proove and to have an honest desire to pursue simpler musical rewards. I think Phil and Co. really really liked being pop tunesmiths, and also really really liked the money. It's just a drag for those of us who preferred their earlier work.


The REAL dropping of the ball was when Phil finally left Genesis and the remaining two decided to attempt to get back to their prog roots somewhat- and failed utterly, making an album that was universally hated by their old prog audience and the new pop audience. I don't even think Banks and Rutherford liked it. (For those of you who don't follow the band that was "Calling All Stations")

I think that they only thing they really had left to prove was that they could do what they did later on. Even if you don't care for the stuff, you have to admit that they were good at it. I think that was the challenge they saw, and in those regards they met it admirably. I guess if Prog wasn't going to be commercially successful anymore, at least not like in the 70's, they needed to change anyway to keep the career going. Anyway, they were still better than a lot of other "hit" bands at that time. I think even in many of their hits, like "Land of Confusion", you could still see they were better musicians and writers than most. It was still pretty progressive, even for Top 40.

Originally Posted by Rammitinski
...Punk is an excuse to act obnoxious. I don't know if it was the direct result of any kind of backlash to any real kind of musical attitude or type, as much as a societal trend of "in your face" that seems to be getting worse all the time. If anything, I think it's just a reaction to the government and corporate b***s**t that's been more and more prevalent since the 60's, or at least more exposed. Squonk was right on there (as much as some of you might find a reason to argue), as far as that being the case in the U.K. (they of the famous soccer "hooliganism"). It had to do with unemployment issues over there, too... [I]
I think this is much closer to the truth. Unemployment in the UK was very high at this time. UB-40 took its name from the British unemployment form number circa late 70's

The US was in double digit inflation from the Carter presidency. Home mortages were 18% if you were lucky. We had hostages in Iran and Steve Dahl was blowing up Disco records in Chicago’s Comiskey Park. If you were just getting out of school it was hard to find a job. It was enough to piss any one off. Spot on Rammitinski!

I don't think punk was a backlash against any type of music, but a backlash or "not for me" reaction to late 60's and early 70's times of flower children and psycho-pharmacuetical (is that a word?) influenced culture. "Peace? Love? Groovy? Wow man?" F**K THAT, TAKE THIS! Sorry, but I don't having anything to cite, it's just my opinion.

larry

That's pretty much true, too - that's one of the things with punk - and frankly, many types of music - there was more than one thing going on with it. Way, way, way back somewhere in this mess (heh), I mentioned this, too. But this was more related to the social backlash and there was also the music backlash. They kind of fit together perfectly. Politics were involved as well, which became particularly prevalent starting in the late 70's and into the early 80's - and beyond.

I've heard of SRC but never really have heard the music. I'm really looking forward to checking those samples out!
OK, speaking of: punk, psychedelia, glam, Lee Ving (Fear), Howard Kaylan (via The Turtles and Zappa), Frank's manager who breifly turned movie producer, Lou Reed and all things rock and roll: has anyone here ever seen the movie Get Crazy???

Get Crazy - oh yeah. Haven't seen it in years. There's some story about Derf Scratch getting shafted by being reduced to an extra so he did some shenanigans to get the larger role he got. Don't know if that is true, though.

That's pretty much true, too - that's one of the things with punk - and frankly, many types of music - there was more than one thing going on with it. Way, way, way back somewhere in this mess (heh), I mentioned this, too. But this was more related to the social backlash and there was also the music backlash. They kind of fit together perfectly. Politics were involved as well, which became particularly prevalent starting in the late 70's and into the early 80's - and beyond. Ok, now that that's settled, what about disco? :) I'm only half-joking. I considered that a black period in music, but some people liked it.

larry

I think this is much closer to the truth. Unemployment in the UK was very high at this time. UB-40 took its name from the British unemployment form number circa late 70's

The US was in double digit inflation from the Carter presidency. Home mortages were 18% if you were lucky. We had hostages in Iran and Steve Dahl was blowing up Disco records in Chicago’s Comiskey Park. If you were just getting out of school it was hard to find a job. It was enough to piss any one off. Spot on Rammitinski!I think after 'Nam and Watergate, people were less naive and more cynical. And now we have more things than ever to be P.O.'d about. Why do you think anti-depressants are so popular? And don't even mention that Dahl thing. Being a major Sox fan, I was really pissed about that, because they were still mathematically in the divisional race, and after losing the first game, they really needed to play that second one. As it was, of course, they had to forfeit it and lose even more ground, from which they never did recover (I was one of those local people that never liked Dahl, anyway.)

Well, of course they do - they're fans. And I think Larry might be right to some degree. Punk is an excuse to act obnoxious.

Ah, who needs an excuse :)


I don't know if it was the direct result of any kind of backlash to any real kind of musical attitude or type, as much as a societal trend of "in your face" that seems to be getting worse all the time. If anything, I think it's just a reaction to the government and corporate b***s**t that's been more and more prevalent since the 60's, or at least more exposed. Squonk was right on there (as much as some of you might find a reason to argue), as far as that being the case in the U.K. (they of the famous soccer "hooliganism"). It had to do with unemployment issues over there, too. And it seemed to catch on over here. And I'm sure those Reagan years gave it plenty of fuel, too.

Well, see my above post. And as stated there, I also brought this up some time ago, particularly in regards to the UK and what was going on there (back when Squonk was saying something about The Pistols just being a fraud and stuff). And yep - Reagan was perfect for punk. However, that's more the social/political side of it, rather than the music side. Again, all of these intertwine pretty well with punk (or pretty poorly, if one is a critic of punk). In fact, so well, I actually think it makes it a bit difficult to extricate the musical "theory" (or whatever) from the other side of it. But if you do, musically, punk was about ripping down the music that was viewed as crappy by many. Well, it was also about having fun with it again - which in a way, is the same thing (at least to some).

Actually, as you went into the later 70's and into the 80's, this even expanded because you had disco, and a bit later, metal, all with MTV which pushed visuals over music itself. So there was even more to grouse about. More of the same, but more.

Ok, now that that's settled, what about disco? :) I'm only half-joking. I considered that a black period in music, but some people liked it.

larry
For me, I view disco the same as I view the dance-club music of today: it has it's purpose, which is to get bodies moving on the dance floor. Not what you'd put on at home for "listening" pleasure, but fine when you're at a club and want to shake your money maker.

Just as popcorn and teen flicks have their place, so does so-called "dance" music.

Lurch: What first grabbed you about punk? A live band that led you to recordings by bands of similiar styles, or vice versa?

Well, the first band I heard was pretty painfully cliche, so I won't get into specific names. But it was from hearing recordings first.

And was it a gradual thing-in other words did you have to learn to like it, or did your first exposure hit you like a ton of bricks?

Closer to the ton of bricks thing. My first reaction was - "huh? What's this - I don't hate this!" It was short (nice for me) - it was fast without having a bunch of guitar solos and such (which has always annoyed me). I pretty quickly sought out other bands and it was all working. But that's just the so-called music side.

Really early on, I found out, "hey - there's all of these other people here into this music I don't hate who seem just as screwed up as me, and there's a lot them that have the same kinds of problems as me." I don't want to make it overly dramatic or anything, but it all just really worked. I was always very misfity (no intended reference to the band), and hassled A LOT for reasons I never exactly understood - for most of my life up to that point, and it all just seemed to click together. A lot of the lyrics worked for me, too. They were either mostly just funny (which I like), or had something to say in no uncertain terms. As it turned out, without even knowing it before, this was pretty important to me as well. I also really, really liked the idea that anyone could get up and put together a band - not to try to get a lucrative recording contract, not to sell out an arena, but for the fun of making music that didn't suck (no one jump on that now) and because they had something to say. And they were completely accessible as people, well, because they were just people coming from the same place as everyone else was. A lot of times, you already knew them or were even friends.

Did the love of swing come after or before? Still trying to get a handle on the whole thing so if you're still there..

Before. I was really into OTR (Old Time Radio - remember, there was that resurgance of popularity of that in the 60's and early 70's) and old movies, and my exposure to swing came from that - though mostly it was from OTR. I didn't know anything at all about any of it until later. I didn't even know the swing kids were essentially rebels until much later. It was just music that made you (or rather, me) kind of want to jump around - and was often impressively fast - not that I really thought that much about it beyond, "hmm, I don't hate this stuff." Although, let's keep in mind that I used to jump up and down to cartoons when I was a little, little kid and absolutely hated Mr. Rogers because he was so slow at doing anything - it would just drive me nuts - it was probably all the sugar cereals - heh.

I really couldn't stand music for the most part, up until I found punk. I rarely listened to anything before except for swing and kids records, and really didn't like what I heard when I did. And I didn't even listen to swing much - just if it was on the radio.

Punk, of course, led to No Wave, early industrial (eg. Foetus), early goth and more. I even was into a lot of what New Wave came to mean, when a lot of punks weren't (although more were than folks are often led to believe). Oddly, in a way, it sort of led to classical, too. I have never really listened to it much, and I don't like to try to figure out the arrangements, themes, etc. I just found it could kind of calm me down at times.

I also don't tend to break music apart or anything, either. I don't know why that is, but that's the way my brain works. I do it with literature and have since before I ever even heard punk - I can do it with movies. But not music. I am sure it's just something misfiring in my head or something :) The thing is, I have no regrets over it, either - I like it that way.

Ok, now that that's settled, what about disco? :) I'm only half-joking. I considered that a black period in music, but some people liked it.


Please see post 570 - heh. I think I was typing it while you were typing this!

I think that they only thing they really had left to prove was that they could do what they did later on. Even if you don't care for the stuff, you have to admit that they were good at it. I think that was the challenge they saw, and in those regards they met it admirably. I guess if Prog wasn't going to be commercially successful anymore, at least not like in the 70's, they needed to change anyway to keep the career going. Anyway, they were still better than a lot of other "hit" bands at that time. I think even in many of their hits, like "Land of Confusion", you could still see they were better musicians and writers than most. It was still pretty progressive, even for Top 40.
I agree that Genesis, and also Yes with 90125, weren't really selling out in the classic sense and retained a large portion of what made them good as prog bands when they became more popular. Although by We Can't dance I couldn't enjoy Genesis anymore. But, I don't hate the 80's albums like many older fans.

Phil's solo albums and Mike And The Mechanics though- not interested :D

I really couldn't stand music for the most part, up until I found punk.

Now Squonk, run with that. :p :p :D

Now Squonk, run with that. :p :p :D

Heh. One thing I forgot to add, was that it originally bothered me, too. I actually *wanted* something I would like - again, no idea why. I eventually gave up, and sort of got the attitude of "well, I guess it's just going to be like this, and I guess I just won't really like any music."

One additional note on swing - I particularly LOVED some of the drumming when I was kid. Well, I still do. But I really vividly recall that on the faster stuff.

Carl Palmer had some great chops but his meter was awful and his taste questionable some of the time. I liked his playing on the first three albums the best. I much prefer Bill Bruford and Alan White- Bill is jazzy and precise, Alan is a rock drummer but has great feel. I think Neil was the best drummer in the world- for Rush. I think Ringo was the best drummer in the world- for The Beatles. I think it's dumb to rate musicians out of context. It's all about the synergy they have with the people they play with. Buddy was probably the best soloist ever, for my money. And since we're on the subject Terry Bozzio can excel in almost any musical surrounding.
Terry Bozzio, Tony Levin & Steve Stevens, Black Light Syndrome, particularly Track 3, Duende.


----------------------------------
Ron Party

Originally Posted by lonwolf615
...Its funny, I know I heard quite a lot of SRC way back then, but all I remember is "Mountain King" and being impressed. That, combined with what you've said, curry, has sold me-gotta get me some. Any suggestions? I might just order one blind, see what I get..
Well hard to say as you can see forward progression with each album. The third, "Travelers's Tale" is the most commercial. I was going to suggest the second "SRC Milestones" until I took a look over at Amazon. Milestones is selling for $75-$80 american money, Yikes. The first and the third are going in the $30-$40 range.

Amazon does have more sound samples for the first and third on the site if you want to listen. Try writing to:
SRC Records - 3023 E. Joy Road - Ann Arbor, MI 48105. There is a web site www.srcrecords.com but I don't see the CD's listed.

Originally Posted by FredProgGH
Carl Palmer had some great chops but his meter was awful and his taste questionable some of the time. I liked his playing on the first three albums the best. I much prefer Bill Bruford and Alan White- Bill is jazzy and precise, Alan is a rock drummer but has great feel. I think Neil was the best drummer in the world- for Rush. I think Ringo was the best drummer in the world- for The Beatles. I think it's dumb to rate musicians out of context. It's all about the synergy they have with the people they play with. Buddy was probably the best soloist ever, for my money. And since we're on the subject Terry Bozzio can excel in almost any musical surrounding.
I like your style Fred.

Saw Bruford and White together on one of the King Crimson shows, seem to be a disservice to both of them.

Well, now that we got that out of the way

Yeah - I am not even gonna directly address a post that adds in a comparison to Hitler. However, he did do it again - he started arguing against himself from an earlier post he made. I said it before, I'll say it again - that guy can't keep track of his own posts/arguments. Then again, it looks like he does this kind of thing in a lot of threads, so it probably does get tough for him to be consistent. And yet, he's never really talked to any of the bands that were actually involved, so he doesn't necessarily know what some of the prevailing notions that these guys (and gals) had that seemed to come up again and again and again.

And since we're on the subject Terry Bozzio can excel in almost any musical surrounding.

Yeah - he was pretty varied, especially if using Missing Persons as an achor. Although, I didn't realize how much stuff he did after Missing Persons until just now. Learn something new...

I just know I'm going to regret posting this but...

Electra was the label for both the Doors and the Stooges.

And of course the only reason record companys sign acts is to sell records, er a advance the art form.

Do you suppose... naw, a record company like Electra would never even think they had just signed up the next Jim Morrison & the Doors clone band when they got Iggy & the Stooges? Record companys don't spray the bar with look-a-like sound-a-like groups to mint money do they? A record company like Electra would never suggest the new boy was influenced or packaged like one of the other studs in the stable would they?

Hmmmm...you know, I was just thinking of his vocals in "The Passenger", and they do seem a bit Morrisson-esque at that....... (although that was later in his career).

Terry Bozzio, Tony Levin & Steve Stevens, Black Light Syndrome, particularly Track 3, Duende.


----------------------------------
Ron Party Now that sounds like something I gotta check out, for sure! It can't NOT be good.

Bcurry: If I remember right, electra wasn't your ordinary mega record company. I think they saw themselves more along the lines of Verve as giving artists exposure and weren't really thinking they were going to sell a lot of records. Again, my memory could be faulty, but I think they were as surprised as anybody when the Doors just took off. But of course once you've tasted the money tree its hard to walk away from it. So yeah, you might be on to something. They caught lightning in a bottle once, they probably figured who knows? Could happen...
You beat me to it on the SRC prices. Of course Milestones is the one with Mountain King/Bolero on it and I'm suddenly obsessed with hearing that again..but geesh.
Lurch: kinda figured it was the ton of bricks thing..And I totally get the part about the sense of community being almost as important as the music. Its amazing the power musiic san have, the bond it can create. And that is what rock had lost by the time punk arrived, isn't it? It was a business, offerring a commodity that consumers purchased. Where once people didn't purchase rock and roll songs, they lived them.

Originally Posted by Rammitinski
Hmmmm...you know, I was just thinking of his vocals in "The Passenger", and they do seem a bit Morrisson-esque at that....... (although that was later in his career).
I believe squonk did point out the The Passenger was a Morrison poem in an earlier post.

Below are some excerpts from a John Sinclair interview. He talks about the Electra relationship with the MC5, how he feels they were sold out by Electra. The contract only lasted 6 months. He also comments how Punk is a "dime store knock-off". The whole interview is here (http://www.furious.com/PERFECT/MC5/johnsinclair.html).

PSF: How did things change for the band once Elektra got involved?

We went ahead and started recording the second album at the Elektra studios in Los Angeles with Bruce Botnick. Then in the middle of that, I had to fly back to New York to meet with Elektra and find out what was going on. I found out that they were violating their word. They were withdrawing it and censoring it, despite the fact that they promised they wouldn't and we'd agreed that we'd just eat it. The record was racing up the charts- it was 30 with a bullet. It was number two at CKLW in Detroit. It was rolling. They just killed it then by taking it off. Then they also tried to kill us by making us look like chumps. It was enfuriating. We just said '**** it, let us out of it.' They said 'great, we'd be glad to get rid of you.' (laughs) So we mutually agreed to end the contract after only about six months (April '69).

PSF: How would you compare those sessions with the material that eventually came out as Back in the USA?

That was Jon Landau's production. He tried to make them sound like what his idea of rock and roll was, which turned out to be Bruce Springsteen. 'I have seen the future of rock and roll and it is Bruce.' Unhappily, he was right and it's been lame ever since! (laughs) He saw it alright! It was guys like him that turned the music into their image of what it should be really. Lame...

PSF: What do you think they left behind?

They're like John Coltrane, Cecil Taylor, Sun Ra. They were in a class by themselves and no one's gone any farther than that. A lot of people watered it down and made a lot of money selling knock-off's on the street! Heavy metal. Millions and millions. All these things they blame 'em for are reductions of the MC5. The MC5 was a hell of a ****ing band. They were beyond a band. They were... musical artists. Artists of high energy music. One facet came down as heavy metal. Another facet came down as punk rock. I guess the thing they liked about the MC5 was that they were colorful and loud and had a lot of energy. But punk rock... that's kind of like a dime store knock-off of the whole diamond as far as I'm concerned musically.

Well, not to get *really* off topic or anything, but since so much good and varied stuff has come up here - if anyone has any info, particularly a discography (with catalog numbers), of the old Haishan Records label out of Taiwan, can you send me a PM? I have a couple of questions you might be able to clear up. Thanks.

A pretty appropriate quote got left out of b curry's post from that intereview:

PSF: You weren't much of a rock and roll fan though?

Rock and roll is a marketing term. Rhythm and blues is a musical form.

Just seemed to fit very nicely in a thread (originally) about the "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame."

Good point lurch.

Green Day- poseurs.

Thems fightin' words.
Green Day is musical punk :)

Green Day made Punk a bit more accessible .... and BAM! Filled stadiums!

Something has always bothered me about that name. Rhythm and blues was what Muddy's music in Chicago was called when he plugged into an amp and formed a band-the whole Chicago-Chess-Memphis sound. But you go in a record store and look in the R+B section and there ain't no Muddy or Wolf to be found. No point to this, it just always bugged me.:)
Looking past the whole marketing thing and the profits from the admissions, just who is the RHOF for? The Oscars started as a way for the film industry to honor its own, The Country Music Academy was similiar-you still have to be involved in country music to vote. Who is the RHOF for-the musicians, the fans, or what? And does membership have any impact? Will Sex Pistols cd's start showing up at WalMart?

Looking past the whole marketing thing and the profits from the admissions, just who is the RHOF for? The Oscars started as a way for the film industry to honor its own, The Country Music Academy was similiar-you still have to be involved in country music to vote. Who is the RHOF for-the musicians, the fans, or what? And does membership have any impact? Will Sex Pistols cd's start showing up at WalMart?

Heh - I think you nailed it (the question) - something I was taking a stab at earlier. I think it is more for the fans and for the musicians who feel honor from it. That's why I really don't understand it, as I was originally asking about. Why it would matter to a fan who likes their music - is it a justification their tastes are good? Or is it a justification of something else? I don't quite get it, although that's probably just me. It seems to me to come down to basically a museum at the end of the day, and I essentially ignore it. Re. The Oscars - they were also an event for the fans, at least originally. The whole Hollywood escapism and obsession thing of the 30's and 40's.

Thems fightin' words.
Green Day is musical punk :)
Green Day made Punk a bit more accessible .... and BAM! Filled stadiums!

I realize you mostly jest here - but I can assure you, they (most of them, anyway) always had their eye on those stadiums, too.

Heh - I think you nailed it (the question) - something I was taking a stab at earlier. I think it is more for the fans and for the musicians who feel honor from it. That's why I really don't understand it, as I was originally asking about. Why it would matter to a fan who likes their music - is it a justification their tastes are good? Or is it a justification of something else? I don't quite get it, although that's probably just me. It seems to me to come down to basically a museum at the end of the day, and I essentially ignore it. Re. The Oscars - they were also an event for the fans, at least originally. The whole Hollywood escapism and obsession thing of the 30's and 40's.
Hehe- I suppose the REAL answer is that it's for The Industry, with capitol letters. It (and more importantly, the televised induction ceremonies) is there to make money, and act as some form of public relations/advertising that keeps people thinking about rock-and-roll and maybe revives occasional interest in flagging careers. Does it make any real difference?? Probably not. Did you ever stop to wonder why Coke advertises?? Does anyone not know what the stuff is?? if they quit advertising tomorrow would anyone forget to buy Coke?? They advertise because that's what you do. The Hall Of Fame is probably a result of similar thinking.

Hehe- I suppose the REAL answer is that it's for The Industry, with capitol letters. It (and more importantly, the televised induction ceremonies) is there to make money,

This is partly what had I thought about before, too - so that's why I didn't understand the anger or dismay or whatever behind the notions that kicked off this thread.

and act as some form of public relations/advertising that keeps people thinking about rock-and-roll and maybe revives occasional interest in flagging careers.

Huh - while this is still about money in the end, this is certainly NOT something I had thought about before. Very good supposition, and I strongly suspect your on to something.

Did you ever stop to wonder why Coke advertises?? Does anyone not know what the stuff is?[QUOTE] .

No, I never had, but now I probably always will.:) You've created some kind of american Zen with that one, Fred.

As long as there are companies like Pepsico nipping at their heels, they pretty much HAVE to advertise, don't ya' think?

I haven't seen this thread and can't read through the entire thing. I did notice some debate about what "punk" rock is/was. Despite my better instincts, here's my two cents. I apologize in advance for the long winded post or if I beat a dead horse.

There is no "punk" rock. That was a label created by some small rag to describe an attitude in the mid-70s of some bands. That term was picked up by the media and used to describe a very diverse musical movement of basically garage bands. In the 1970s, the radio quit playing any real variety of music forcing music underground. You couldn't play live unless you were established or you played covers.

In the mid-1970s some bands (first one: Television) got some bars in the Bowery (CBGB's and Max's Kansas City) to allow live original music. Many bands started flowering because they had the chance to play live. None of those bands would call themselves "punk." Think of the diversity: You had Television which contained long extended solos and was kind of a Greatful Dead quality. You had Patti Smith doing long extended poetry over rock music. You had the Ramones doing stripped down surfing music. You had Blondie doing pop. You had other rock bands just doing rock music such as the Dictators etc. You had the Talking Heads going more odd pop. These were extensions of many other previous bands such as the Kinks, MC5, David Bowie, Iggy & the Stooges and the New York Dolls.

Some of the quality of the music was affected by the lack of musicianship by the band members but as the bands continued playing, their musicianship improved and ideas improved. As the "do it yourself" wave hit other cities and countries such as England, the influences which created different sounds expanded. In England, there was a heavy reggae influence. Some bands were political and others weren't.

There isn't a "punk" sound. Certain artists turned to different influences. James White turned to jazz/soul. The Clash had a reggae influence. Ian Dury had funk influence. The Raincoats had a folk influence.

Elvis Costello was called a punk but why? His music is simply rock music. I think punk was intended to represent an attitude of f#ck you -- I don't care. It really has little to do with the style of music played.

Later the term "New Wave" was used to soften the impact of the label "punk" which scared the crap out of people.

None of these bands set out to be punks. Punk was not a "reaction" to the music playing. It was simply kids wanting to play music and be heard. They were forced into having an attitude because they had to fight to get their music out. In the 80s, things got even worse and many bands went completely underground. However, there was an audience and many bands exchanged tapes as home recording was developing.

You can compare so-called punk rock to the rock in the 60s and there really isn't much difference. Some of the 60s music is just as raucous, sloppy and in your face as 70s music.

As for the two bands being inducted: Blondie was born out of the CBGB scene but aspired to make it. They played more pop music which was intended to be more accessible. I don't exactly get why they would be conisdered to be Hall of Fame material as there is little special about the band other than they became the most commercially successful of all of those bands. If that is the criteria for this Hall of Fame, wouldn't a punk rocker really say "f#ck that!"?

The Sex Pistols were the short lived do it yourself spirit incarnate. Time has shown that this band had an impact because of Johnny Lydon. He was able to come up with affecting and snarling lyrics and the band was able to put on a show, be defiant and yet win over people who saw them. Lydon is really the only one who was able to successfully continue with music in PIL. The Sex Pistols could be Hall of Fame worthy for the impact but they were very short-lived. The idea that they created the Punk Rock scene in England or America is actually ridiculous. The clothes and styles of "punk" were more created by Malcolm McLaren and Vivian in their store in England. The bands actually didn't dress like the so-called punks with bondage clothing. Malcolm and Vivian were actually influenced by Richard Hell who dressed poorly probably out of necessity rather than fashion.

The Independent Film Channel has a movie called: "Punk: Attitude" which does a great job going over this with interviews of many of the participants discussing the influences and beginnings of the movement. I myself played in bands in Tucson during the late 1970s and early 1980s so have some first hand knowledge of what was going on then. I was listening to the New York bands and England bands at the time. Check out the movie, its really a great record of what was going on at the time.

Edit: Link to Punk: Attitude

http://www.punkattitude.co.uk/

Good post.

I apologize in advance for the long winded post or if I beat a dead horse.
I believe that would be *flogging a dead horse* ;)


There isn't a "punk" sound. Certain artists turned to different influences. James White turned to jazz/soul. The Clash had a reggae influence. Ian Dury had funk influence. The Raincoats had a folk influence.

Elvis Costello was called a punk but why? His music is simply rock music. I think punk was intended to represent an attitude of f#ck you -- I don't care. It really has little to do with the style of music played.
Exactly. (Just don't let Squonk hear you say that...it may re-ingnite the war...)

Punk was not a "reaction" to the music playing. It was simply kids wanting to play music and be heard. They were forced into having an attitude because they had to fight to get their music out.
Yes and no, IMO. The music being played on the radio and in the concert halls was inaccessible, the bands were inaccessible, and getting new bands heard was impossible. So, in that sense, I think it *was* a reaction to the music...or more specifically, the music *industry* at the time.

Also, I remember very much that in the media that punk was directly associated with "fast music, safety pins mohawks and aggression". In other words, people in the scene might not have seen it that way but middle America was getting the definite impression that punk was The Pistols and The Buzzcocks and they were very dangerous. Most other bands, like Television, Blondie. the Heads and the rest were not getting lumped into that category and so the New Wave moniker was indeed created (which in turn swallowed up bands like The Cars who had little to do with it beyond skinny ties.) But I think that helped define what was Punk and what was New Wave fairly early, and I think it came from outside.

[QUOTE=FredProgGH]Also, I remember very much that in the media that punk was directly associated with "fast music, safety pins mohawks and aggression". In other words, people in the scene might not have seen it that way but middle America was getting the definite impression that punk was The Pistols and The Buzzcocks and they were very dangerous. Most other bands, like Television, Blondie. the Heads and the rest were not getting lumped into that category and so the New Wave moniker was indeed created (which in turn swallowed up bands like The Cars who had little to do with it beyond skinny ties.) But I think that helped define what was Punk and what was New Wave fairly early, and I think it came from outside.

gonna rant a little...

That really gets to the heart of it, doesn't it? I think so much of the confusion is caused by the difference between what the people "part of the scene" thought of the music, and how the media portrayed it to the rest of us. The whole history of rock is full of stories of how the industry tried to get a grip on what was happening and then control it. Elvis was co-opted, Jerry Lee was banned, and the industry created their own version of "rock and roll' with Fabian. Avalon, etc. You got to feel sorry for the music industry in a way-something new arrived that shook up their system, they couldn't just ignore it because it sold a lot of records. And just when they thought they had it under control something else came along and shook it all up again. The British Invasion, the "San Francisco sound" , on and on. By the late 70's they again thought they had it under control and then here comes the whole punk thing, rejecting the carefully constructed niche the industry had put rock into. It had to be scary-the last thing the industry wanted was to return to the way it was in the early 50's or after the british bands hit in the mid-60's, when they had to play catch up to the popular taste. So you put a label on it, seperate it from the mainstream, accent the negatives, ridicule those involved. Its all just music, and just browsing this thread proves how silly it is to try to label it and put each type in a different niche. Good music is good music, me thinks=The Ramones have more in common with Genesis, for example, than Paul Anka had with Presley. Its the industry, and the media, that creates the differences to seperate one group from another. And the mindless consumers we are, we let them get away with it..
And the RHOF seems to be just another attempt to get the music under control, with the industry deciding which acts deserve to be remembered and which don't.

Great post, btw, daryl-glad you decided to share.

Thanks lonwolf615, this is a topic I love to discuss because I love music in general and this music in particular.

Just a couple of other comments made out of total ignorance.

The record companies, for the most part, are there to make money for themselves and the talent. It is very hard to predict new trends. We all know that the record companies realized long ago that they could create their own trends by paying off radio stations to play their material and essentially narrowing down the general public's options. Even so, the companies don't buck the status quo until something happens then they jump aboard with enthusiasm. "Punk" and "New Wave" really never became much of a trend except to special fans who went out of their way to find out about these trends. Had any of the bands broke through like Nirvana did in the 90s, we would have heard much more from these bands.

As to progressive rock vs. punk, I don't believe there is any cause or effect here. I know the Pistols famously wore a or more than one shirt one time saying essentially "Screw Pink Floyd" but that was probably just to get a rise out of people since Pink Floyd (oddly enough not really an establishment band) was part of The Establishment at that time. The Pistols were all about pissing against anything and everything and getting reactions.

Though I was far from the fray and a bit younger than the folks forming bands in New York in the mid-70s, I never heard any disparagement of the prog bands. If anything, the distinction was that we couldn't play good enough to copy them. I had listened to Yes and I loved Pink Floyd. Another strong influence was BeBop Deluxe who were doing prog-like rock. I listened to the supergroup UK. I wasn't into Genesis but many of my musician friends were. There was also Crack the Sky which was also overblown rock. I had a Kansas album for crying out loud.

All music was good. My band's influence had funk, rap, Gang of Four, Televison, Talking Heads, BeBop Deluxe, Ramones etc etc. We listened and took what we liked, distilled it into our own sensibilities filtered from the limitations of our musicanship and made our own music.

BeBop Deluxe... very cool...

Some how we gotta work in Captain Beefhearts "Lick My Decals Off, Baby".

That's why I never really trusted "The Underground" totally either. It was still basically a way of pigeonholing and being trendy. It was a good thing to have, though, because it was just another source to add to the mix. It's funny how, in hindsight, people only lump bands like Yes and Genesis into a progressive catagory. In the early 70's, the great stations we have/had in Chicago like WXRT and Triad, pretty much considered a wide range of music "progressive". And that included stuff like early Judas Priest ("Sad Wings of Destiny" - an album every appreciator of fine rock should own), and many "hard rock" bands, along with Classical rock, Fusion and artsy New Wave like The Heads. I can't really speak for people who grew up in other geographical regions, but I always felt we were really lucky in that respect. When Triad took a sudden turn around "77 - "78 and completely dropped their eclectic, "non - commercial" style and went completely what could be called "Sex Pistols style - Punk", myself and friends were really taken aback. It was fresh, energetic and invigorating, and we got into to it even though we enormously missed the other stuff, but then the format, and even more unfortunately, the station itself, died a quiet death after a few months. WXRT, even though it's still considered a "fine rock station" (compared to other local fare), really hasn't been the same for the past 25 years either, as it's gotten more corporate and mainstream. All I can say is, thank God for a channel like "Underground Garage Rock" on Sirius, which I receive with my Dish subscription. It's far and away my favorite channel on there. I really do wish they would start a Yes/Genesis-type Progressive channel though, to round things out, as they seem to cover just about everything else. An old Fusion-type channel would be nice, too, but even if they combined those two "categories", I think that would be more than acceptable.

Some how we gotta work in Captain Beefhearts "Lick My Decals Off, Baby". I just listened to that a couple hours ago - my favorite Beefheart album. "Ice Cream for Crow" is currenly playing on my MP3 player.

I tried to upload this, but it's a little to big (600x600). Decent shot of Rockette Morton playing his double-neck Danelectro at the Spectrum in Philly in 1970. http://ww2.pooperscooper.net:31755/images/rocketmorton-autolevel-2.jpg

larry

Though I was far from the fray and a bit younger than the folks forming bands in New York in the mid-70s, I never heard any disparagement of the prog bands. If anything, the distinction was that we couldn't play good enough to copy them.

You know, you're right. I've know quite a few punk musicians for whom that was true- they wanted to have a band and knew they weren't good enough to play like Yes or Rush, and The Pistols and Ramones or whoever came along and said hey, do this!! And I would say out of those guys only about 20% then went on to go around saying that technical music sucked. All the rest still admitted they liked those bands, they just were glad that they could have their own band that was fast and loud and cool.

I do think some bands like The Pistols actually did hate what bands like Yes and ELP and Floyd represented though, and it became sort of hip to hate "good" bands, at least in some circles. probably the more fashion oriented ones.

We've concentrated so much on the SP that I've forgotten to ask one question: What the heck is Blondie doing in there? Not saying they shouldn't be, I just wonder what the criteria was. Doesn't seem like they had a lasting influence and I don't remember anyone being that passionate about their music at the time...what am I missing?

Well, they did have the first top 40 Rap song, Rapture. :p :D

"What the heck is Blondie doing in there?"


They were from New York so the chattering classes liked them. They had a hot chick singer.

The best band from New York was Mountain. I wonder if they'll ever be in the so-called "hall of fame"?

You're talking Leslie West and Felix P? Corky Laing on drums, I think...or is there some other Mountain and I've just displayed my ignorance again? (there's Billy the Mountain of course).

You got it Lonwolf. IIRC, Leslie West has done something recently. Musically, that is. :)

larry

Well, Felix deserves to be in there, as a producer if nothing else. The work he did with Cream ranks with what Martin did with The Beatles, imo. You had a power trio that depended on loudness to "fill out" their sound, and stressed virtuosity over composition-i.e., how they played their songs being more important than the songs themselves. And some how FP captured the essence of them live within the framework of a traditional album, and made it accessible to a broad audience to boot. Turned what should have been a cult band into a mainstream taste and thus changed r+r forever...
Almost like with the beatles, you can break up how recorded rock sounded as pre-Disraeli Gears + Wheels of Fire, and after..

He produced more than I remembered...
"Producer for Joan Baez, Lovin' Spoonful; Fred Neil; The Youngbloods, 1967; Bo Grumpus, 1968; Leslie West, 1968; Cream; Jack Bruce, 1969; Bedlam, 1973."

Also, Mountain's live recording with Felix singing/bassing is my favorite version of "Theme for an Imaginary Western".

larry

Papillardi.

I'm just waiting for Genesis' reunion tour to be announced. Then they'll be in there.

(That's another way of saying it'll never happen. :-)

I'm just waiting for Genesis' reunion tour to be announced. Then they'll be in there.
The one with Peter Gabriel?? Those rumors started up yet again recently. The Beatles have a better chance of getting together than Genesis with PG.

Actually, I'd rather just go see these guys (http://www.themusicalbox.net/). They're better than the real thing. Even Genesis admits it. :p

The one with Peter Gabriel?? Those rumors started up yet again recently. The Beatles have a better chance of getting together than Genesis with PG.

Actually, I'd rather just go see these guys (http://www.themusicalbox.net/). They're better than the real thing. Even Genesis admits it. :pI'm on board with that...like to take off 30 years and get my mind back in the groove too, if you know what I mean.

I think I did mention King Crimson. I could name 30 other prog bands that should be in the Hall before the Sex Pistols.


THe Sex Pistols certainly belong there -- they were seminal, whether you liked their music or not.

The big prog rock bands belong there too, but don't hold your breath. As long as the prog-hating Jann Wenner and his coterie run the show, prog will be shut out. Maybe Crimson (for being critics's darlings) or Rush (bnecause they've always appealed to 'younger' prog fans) will get in in a few years, but I suspect Yes, Genesis , ELP and Tull will have a long wait

Btw, Wenner hates prog, but Rolling Stones didn't always hate prog. Yes got some glowing reviews circa 1971-3, and ELP even got a pretty decent write-up as late as 'Works I'.

Okay, a couple of people have brought up why we even care who's in the R&RHOF. The fact is, it's an honor to be inducted. But it makes the HOF look like a big joke when acts like the Sex Pistols are inducted, and other great acts like ELP have been ignored.

Only to ELP fans.

If that's the extent of your knowledge of Yes, then you obviously need to educate yourself a little more on progressive rock.
The bottom line is that while ultimately in terms of what I listen to it doesn't matter at all whether the Sex Pistols are in the Hall and Yes is not, since they do have the honor and since people do take an interest in it, and since people are influenced by this type of honor, rightly or wrongly, it is patently absurd that a band that put one album out who admit themselves they couldn't play a lick

Well, no, that isn't true. Steve Jones could play and in fact cited Steve Howe as an influence.



There are far more people chuckling that the Sex Pistols are Rock and Roll Hall of Famers than would be if Yes were inducted. Including the Sex Pistols themselves.

The SP are chuckling because they (or at least Lydon) consider the whole thing a cynical farce, regardless of the musicianship involved. I doubt may others who know the history of rock think the SP don't belong in a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, excpe maybe for terminally disgruntled ELP fans.

this band needs to be there: The Shaggs

I certainly appreciate the punk thing, and like a lot of it. But bands like Yes or King Crimson or Rush created music that showed where the popular music genre can go, of a level of complexity that stands up against classical or jazz levels of technical and musical capabilities.

Not really. Rush's harmonic structures are rarely more than simple. None of these bands, even King Crimson which made a fetish of it, could improvise as well as good jazz bands. And comapre dto classical...please. The technique is excellent *for rock*, but nothing to scream about for classical. It's more about the *feel* that rock bands get.

Basically, the 'virtuoso' argument is a dead end. It's really what any musician does with his or her talent, that counts. And it's the things Yes etc did with theirs, that makes me like them...not that they are 'the fastest' or whatever because even a cursory exposrue to classical and jazz destroys *that* illusion. It's the creation of musical *power* that counts for me. Yes et al do it by excellent playing and unusual (for rock) musical structures. The Sex Pistos do it by amping everything -- including the attitude -- up to 11. Both methods work for me.

this band needs to be there: The Shaggs


And on that note- Greyskies, any luck?? :D

[QUOTE=krabapple]Not really. Rush's harmonic structures are rarely more than simple. None of these bands, even King Crimson which made a fetish of it, could improvise as well as good jazz bands. And comapre dto classical...please. The technique is excellent *for rock*, but nothing to scream about for classical. It's more about the *feel* that rock bands get.

Basically, the 'virtuoso' argument is a dead end. It's really what any musician does with his or her talent, that counts. And it's the things Yes etc did with theirs, that makes me like them...not that they are 'the fastest' or whatever because even a cursory exposrue to classical and jazz destroys *that* illusion. It's the creation of musical *power* that counts for me. Yes et al do it by excellent playing and unusual (for rock) musical structures. The Sex Pistos do it by amping everything -- including the attitude -- up to 11. Both methods work for me.

Great post.

And on that note- Greyskies, any luck?? :D
...so I thought it might be ogg, and it's not that...
I grabbed a bunch of odd codecs and will be trying those this week-- I haven't given up yet. :)

I like the comment I heard Ian Anderson make in an interview a few years back. He said that that the whole thing about those bands back then (Prog. et al), was that unlike now, it was an intentional effort to sound as unalike from one another as possible. I always thought that summed up the music better and more simply than anything I'd ever heard before or since.

I like the comment I heard Ian Anderson make in an interview a few years back. He said that that the whole thing about those bands back then (Prog. et al), was that unlike now, it was an intentional effort to sound as unalike from one another as possible. I always thought that summed up the music better and more simply than anything I'd ever heard before or since.
That's true. But, everything that is now old was once new- and vice versa. Just because the music that they still call "prog" isn't progressive at all- well, I don't feel any worse still playing it than any film score writer still writing in a classical style. And most new proggers are still more inventive within the confines of the genre than most blues musicians within theirs.. :D

Not really. Rush's harmonic structures are rarely more than simple. None of these bands, even King Crimson which made a fetish of it, could improvise as well as good jazz bands. And comapre dto classical...please. The technique is excellent *for rock*, but nothing to scream about for classical. It's more about the *feel* that rock bands get.

Basically, the 'virtuoso' argument is a dead end. It's really what any musician does with his or her talent, that counts. And it's the things Yes etc did with theirs, that makes me like them...not that they are 'the fastest' or whatever because even a cursory exposrue to classical and jazz destroys *that* illusion. It's the creation of musical *power* that counts for me. Yes et al do it by excellent playing and unusual (for rock) musical structures. The Sex Pistos do it by amping everything -- including the attitude -- up to 11. Both methods work for me.


Well Classical is written on paper, which is not improv, and hurts classical both coming (writing) and going (playing). They simply can't come up with a composition like Rush's "Natural Science", because the mood and the groove cannot be easily written.

The fact is that both Classical and Jazz are ultimately failing to get new listeners, and theres a reason why Rock and other forms of music are capturing more young minds.

[QUOTE]
The fact is that both Classical and Jazz are ultimately failing to get new listeners, and theres a reason why Rock and other forms of music are capturing more young minds.

Is "rock" really doing that, though? Are there rock groups that inspire teenage listeners now the way the bands mentioned in this thread inspired us? I'm just asking because I don't know, maybe I'm totally out of the loop. But the biggest tours year after year are performers that have been around 20-30 years, or even longer. Its so weird seeing 16 year olds excited by the Paul Rodgers-Queen tour, or standing in line for Rush=Eagles tickets. When I was their age I had no interest in performers from even 10 years before-I wanted my own music. Are there new performers that capture the teenagers of today the way rock music used to inspire us? I'm curious.

A lot of the music I listen to is around 30 years old and then I find it funny to put myself back in 1970 and think about listening to music from 1940..... :)

larry

Well Classical is written on paper, which is not improv, and hurts classical both coming (writing) and going (playing). They simply can't come up with a composition like Rush's "Natural Science", because the mood and the groove cannot be easily written.

The fact is that both Classical and Jazz are ultimately failing to get new listeners, and theres a reason why Rock and other forms of music are capturing more young minds.

No offense, but what a load of crap.

A lot of the music I listen to is around 30 years old and then I find it funny to put myself back in 1970 and think about listening to music from 1940..... :)

larry Exactly.

Well Classical is written on paper, which is not improv, and hurts classical both coming (writing) and going (playing). They simply can't come up with a composition like Rush's "Natural Science", because the mood and the groove cannot be easily written.

Oh, please. Notation is always a 'transcription' -- it is not the *thing itself*. And there's tons of notation for rock music too these days, some of it as minutely detailed as classical scores (check out all those symbols for fret-hand techniques in a Guitar World transcription). The 'groove' in 'classical' cannot easily be written either, which helps explain why different performances sound different. Rush music is baby stuff compositionally and technically compared to, say, a Bartok quartet (which can *groove* quite nicely too, when played right) -- or to , say, John Coltrane's 'Giant Steps' , which grooves rather hard. And of course jazz musicians tend to be able to read music too -- it doesn't seem to impede their ability to create
'mood' and 'groove', does it?


The fact is that both Classical and Jazz are ultimately failing to get new listeners, and theres a reason why Rock and other forms of music are capturing more young minds.

Which has nothing to do with it being notated or not...and very much to do with education and marketing. And rock isn't particularly healthy in the marketplace either, comapred to what it used to be.

Surprised I let that one go-- yes, rock is pretty much dying as well, IMO. The fact that many kids are more interested in 70's bands than new bands points that out. Even hip-hop has had its day, I think. Electronica and ambient- basically loop based music is the next thing. It's not composed or written in a sense, it's made like a collage out of found elements.

Also, early classical had tons of improv in it- look at the "score" for the second movement of Bach's Third Brandenburg Concerto, for instance; he expected the entire piece to be improvised apart from the final two chord cadence. Continuo and cadenza parts were always improvised. The reason Natural Science has that groove is the presence of the drum backbeat which orchestras don't have; it's an arrangement thing.

Oh, please. Notation is always a 'transcription' -- it is not the *thing itself*. And there's tons of notation for rock music too these days, some of it as minutely detailed as classical scores (check out all those symbols for fret-hand techniques in a Guitar World transcription). The 'groove' in 'classical' cannot easily be written either, which helps explain why different performances sound different. Rush music is baby stuff compositionally and technically compared to, say, a Bartok quartet (which can *groove* quite nicely too, when played right) -- or to , say, John Coltrane's 'Giant Steps' , which grooves rather hard. And of course jazz musicians tend to be able to read music too -- it doesn't seem to impede their ability to create
'mood' and 'groove', does it?




Which has nothing to do with it being notated or not...and very much to do with education and marketing. And rock isn't particularly healthy in the marketplace either, comapred to what it used to be. Right on. Right now I think, our society in general is in a more "dumbed down" (and ignorance is bliss) stage as far as the mainstream goes. They like the "safe" stuff, which can appeal to the widest possible audience. And, unfortunately, which fits in with what you say, our country is becoming filled with more and more uneducated people every day, which is naturally gonna have a huge effect on what's being released and played in mainstream areas. Plus, people naturally put down things they don't understand or are over their head. I'd like to say I'm awaiting a big backlash, but as things are, the music would probably get commercialized into total c**p in no time anyway, so I really don't know how much it will change, if ever. It's too special to let that happen, so I'm actually pretty comfortable with the way it is right now. There's been a lot of "pretenders" of types of music that have been thrust upon us, like Joss Stone, Christine Aguilera, Mariah Carey, Harry Connick jr., Diana Krall (I know, I know - I don't mind listening to or looking at her either), Kenny G, The Marsalis', that are all about "technique", and/or showing off what they can do with their voices or instruments more than they really seem to have the depth of really "getting" the music. Now I'm not saying they totally suck, but basically they're just people pretending to be great at these things, when there isn't a darn thing that's innovative or creative about them, and they all lack the real "soul" and "feel" that the true artists of those genres had, even though they've made the music more palpable and accessable to the general public (of course, they're not the only ones - look at all the so-so comedians these days who never pay any dues and are called "great" and "legends"). We've always had a certain amount of these (hyped-to-the-hilt-acts) in popular music, more or less so depending on the times. Like them or not, both The Beatles and Springsteen started out that way, but they had the stuff to actually become legendary in their own way. You can rarely (if ever), say that about anyone now. But they say that kids and teens are wanting to hear more of the music that there parents listened to these days, so I guess at least some of these performers serve to introduce them to the music somewhat. There must be something inside their heads that clicks when they actually hear the truer artists. I guess it helps if they have parents and teachers who can point this out to them (in a way that they'll actually listen). I think if we're gonna have white people attempting to sing soulfully and pulling it off more respectably, we need to find more people that actually "got" it, like Paul Rodgers, Bonnie Raitt, Robert Palmer, etc., and maybe even early Hall & Oates, to really help to get more (at least white) people into it. African-Americans, I think are even more accepting of this stuff than whites as a whole sometimes, as much rap seems to be a step backwards musically and culturally, (though some of it can be pretty creative at times), and most of the modern black (and white) soul singers sound as if they're having problems with constipation or going through labor more than actually singing sometimes. But as they were so instrumental in so much of our country's musical history in the past, there's no reason to think they can't contribute like that again. Jazz, blues, gospel, early rock & roll - someone mentioned Techno and Ambient - heck, where would even those types of music be without the pulsating beats that have their roots in African music (along with our Teutonic friends' great synth stylings)? Oh well. Enough rambling for now.

Hey, Ram, Ramble On...oops.
Thats a great post and I couldn't agree more. Country music would be another example of what you're talking about. In the early 90"s country radio had a huge rise in popularity, there were all kinds of million seller cd's and some country acts became huge stars even beyond their genre. But as the music became mainstream it lost track of where it came from. Now country radio is some strange mix of mainstream pop and performers that "sorta' sound like Haggard or Cash or Jones. The real stuff has been banished from the radio even as the stations talk about tradition. Its ironic isn't it? As any genre begins to reach higher heights of popularity it inevitably changes from what made it unique in the first place and starts sounding like everything else.
And yet there is stilll good music out there. And about 90% of it comes from Texas.

And yet there is stilll good music out there. And about 90% of it comes from Texas.

yeah, like what?? :p :p :p :D

Originally Posted by Rammitinski
...someone mentioned Techno and Ambient - heck, where would even those types of music be without the pulsating beats that have their roots in African music (along with our Teutonic friends' great synth stylings)?
I will rear my ugly head and just offer that while the popular view is European or German, Techno is another product of Detroit from the late 70's early 80's.

The Detroit Techno Festival is just a few weeks away. There's always a large number of European tourist attending. Some current information from the "Detroit News" here (http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060324/ENT01/603240360/1032/ENT).

yeah, like what?? :p :p :p :D

You gotta know who he's referring to :D!

Originally Posted by FredProgGH
...Electronica and ambient- basically loop based music is the next thing. It's not composed or written in a sense, it's made like a collage out of found elements....
Makes me think of the "everything old is new again" statement.

Check out the band "Silver Apples" here (http://www.silverapples.com/). Click on the song "Oscillations" sound bite, circa 1967-68. These guys have been around for almost 40 years and still going. And then there's Brian Eno.

Rush music is baby stuff compositionally and technically compared to, say, a Bartok quartet (which can *groove* quite nicely too, when played right) -- or to , say, John Coltrane's 'Giant Steps' , which grooves rather hard. And of course jazz musicians tend to be able to read music too -- it doesn't seem to impede their ability to create 'mood' and 'groove', does it?

Complexity does not equal good music, and unless its done with a purpose, complexity is often negative. This is true in all art forms, the best artists, writers, and screenwriters are usually the ones that present bold, clear ideas with their art. Clarity rules, Soupy drools :)

Which has nothing to do with it being notated or not...and very much to do with education and marketing. And rock isn't particularly healthy in the marketplace either, compared to what it used to be.

Actually rock is doing quite well, the genre continues to rule concert sales. Album/Song sales are unspectacular but steady. Jazz and Classical sales are DEAD, they almost dont exist.

BTW I have tremendous respect for classcal and Jazz artists... but dont blame the listeners if they listen to something more human.

Makes me think of the "everything old is new again" statement.

Check out the band "Silver Apples" here (http://www.silverapples.com/). Click on the song "Oscillations" sound bite, circa 1967-68. These guys have been around for almost 40 years and still going. And then there's Brian Eno.
..and Can, and he rest of the Krautrockers, oh I know. But mostly Eno, I'd say. It's the use of computers to make sampling easy that's the key today. Those guys really had to do it the hard way!!

You gotta know who he's referring to :D!

Hmm, this is gonna be good...enlighten me John...

By the way, your remarks about complexity not being an end in itself are right on. You stated concisely what a lot of us have been trying to say in this thread from the beginning.

The best thing I can think of from Texas is sadly no longer with us :( And really, though I tend to agree, complexity for complexity's sake CAN be quite entertaining- if you happen to enjoy that sort of thing. That's a completely subjective statement. Plus, who's to say what the motivation behind complexity is- most listeners would put any Coltrane solo into that category, but Trane fans don't...

I will rear my ugly head and just offer that while the popular view is European or German, Techno is another product of Detroit from the late 70's early 80's.

The Detroit Techno Festival is just a few weeks away. There's always a large number of European tourist attending. Some current information from the "Detroit News" here (http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060324/ENT01/603240360/1032/ENT). That's not something I was even aware of. The first thing I ever remember that was accessable and was like a big breakthrough type of album which seemed to combine synths into a dancable beat in the sort of "techno" way was probably "Trans-Europe Express" in '77. Are you referring to what sort of became Disco (being that a lot of soul artists were associated with that)? I know Eno, Dream, Fast and them were doing the ambient stuff before that, which was more "spacey" than dancable, and I certainly wouldn't consider "Autobahn" dancey (Although they had an album between the two mentioned that I can't remember which one it was offhand, and I don't know how dancable-like it was - "Radio Activity" maybe?), but I just don't recall a big Detroit connection. Who were some of the artists? Because in Chicago we had a great underground radio station that played the stuff, but the bands pretty much were known recording artists. Speaking of Kraftwerk, one of the funniest things I ever read (especially if you were really into them and their image), was in a small book about them years ago. I don't know if it's still available, but it was a really great and interesting book. Anyway, they were known for not wanting or liking to be photographed. When an interviewer asked one of them (I forget which one) why this was, he replied "Becuss vee are paranoid!".

BTW I have tremendous respect for classcal and Jazz artists... but dont blame the listeners if they listen to something more human.
Without a doubt, this has got to be amongst the dumbest, if not the dumbest, post I've read at AVS. Classical and jazz music is less "human" than rock music. :eek: :eek: :eek:

---------------------------
Ron Party

Ron,

Since the time of the traveling bard, the common folk related to the guy who came to town, singing songs, sometimes playing an instrument, and telling stories. Thats human.

Meanwhile the nobility supported opera and classical, but there was nothing there the common folk could relate too. Sure opera told a story, in latin!

Guess what ... things havent changed that much. If you want to relate to the teaming masses, you gotta write a song about them.

Hmm, this is gonna be good...enlighten me John...

Hah you didnt have those 3 in mind?? I may have guessed wrong then....

Ron,

Since the time of the traveling bard, the common folk related to the guy who came to town, singing songs, sometimes playing an instrument, and telling stories. Thats human.
Well, if "human" is actually a synonym for "simple" or "stupid" I'll pass on being human.

Meanwhile the nobility supported opera and classical, but there was nothing there the common folk could relate too. Sure opera told a story, in latin!
Actually, the common losers liked their opera too, although they were less stuffy about it. I refer you to The Magic Flute... (in German, BTW- who the heck ever wrote an opera in Latin? Anyway, don't forget, what we call "classical" music used to be just "music". It could be and was enjoyed by everyone. The main difference between it and folk music was, then as now, in who MADE it.

Guess what ... things haven't changed that much. If you want to relate to the teaming masses, you gotta write a song about them.
True, which is why most orchestral music, at least from 100 years ago and more, is chock full of quotes of folk music melodies of the time.

Originally Posted by Rammitinski

That's not something I was even aware of....

...but I just don't recall a big Detroit connection. Who were some of the artists? Because in Chicago we had a great underground radio station that played the stuff, but the bands pretty much were known recording artists....
You know Michigan Avenue starts in downtown Detroit and ends on the north side of Chicago (Gold Cost) or vice versa. A very real link or connection between the two citys in more ways than one...

Techno is or has been credited to three guys, again from the Ann Arbor area, who were impressed with the Chicago/Lincoln Park club scene and the sounds of Black Detroit radio stations dance mixes. One of the guys, Derrick May, is quoted as having described Techno aka Detroit House Music as "George Clinton and Kraftwerk stuck in an elevator".

At the risk of "The rath of SquonK", I'll link you to a Wiki that gives a reasonable history and lists artists of the Techno genera here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techno_music) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_techno).

A good part of my work has me in Dusseldorf, Germany home of Kraftwerk. Techno is almost always a pub conversation that comes up when you say your from Detroit. The whole idea of Techno seems to be a natural fit with the German culture.

Edit: Rammitinski, here (http://pitchforkmedia.com/features/weekly/05-11-28-house-and-techno.shtml) is an article titled Autobahn to I-94 Detroit Techno and Chicago House, or something like that; more than a Wiki any how.

A quote from the link: "Detroit had this more funky edge while Chicago was more disco. In Detroit you had Mojo [legendary Detroit radio DJ Electrifiyin' Mojo] on the radio who played Jimi Hendrix, the Gap Band, Parliament/Funkaldelic, and a lot of the European things, whereas folks in Chicago were more focused on disco. To me that stuff out of Detroit was very different from the Chicago sound. It's right more synthesizer-based whereas house music was more drum machine-based. You can hear that difference even right back to Cybotron."

Have you met Dieter, from "Schprockets" over there yet? I read that last "Autobahn" article and yeah, I suppose that all fits as far as what became most popular, especially in the clubs and all. But that seems to be dated from the early to mid '80's. I guess what I'm referring to is earlier on, before it became what was actually called "Techno". As I remember, Kraftwerk themselves didn't even officially join the "Techno" ranks until way later in the movement, after it was well established, with the release of "Electric Cafe". They actually put out a more commercially successful album with that then any of the others even had. It didn't surprise me at all, since they were doing it long before most. I remember being in a HiFi store when that was out and I was auditioning tape decks with a home recording of it. This black guy came up to me and was real excited, asking me who it was and where he could find it, because he had heard it somewhere and thought it was great. And from what it sounded like, he had many friends who were also trying to find out. So I wrote it down for him and he couldn't thank me enough (it was "Boing Boom Tshcak", if I remember right). I didn't check out the Wiki artist list links you gave yet, but I'll do that now. (It'll keep me from getting sucked into some of the other side discussions here, which seem to be on the verge of nastiness once again.)

Okay, I skimmed through them. Everything I said in the preceding post was right, as far as what I meant. The actual, popular genre of "Techno" is the club music from the mid 80's on. And, other than saying once that Kraftwerk was used with overlays later, they basically refer to them (and Giorgio Moroder) in '77 as being the earliest influences. I was confusing the earlier influencing stuff with what was actually termed "Techno" later. I wasn't aware so much about Detroit's contributions, but yeah, being from Chicago and having been in enough clubs back then and knowing as much as I did about the music scene here, I was aware of our importance in establishing "House Music". I'm not surprised one bit that Detroit added a lot of the "funk" to it all. You guys always were funkier. Here, the kind of people that would mostly be into that scene usually want it simpler and more straightforward. They just want to completely be able to zone out without anything in the music to distract them. I probably would've been into it more myself here if it had a bit more funk, as I'm not a dancer at all and I would've appreciated the musicality more. Now that I think of it, the only times I ever got on a dance floor at a wedding (other than a slow song) was when they would play The Gap Band. House music to me is only good for dancing - funk is - well - more musical. I've always loved it, starting from when I was young, with James Brown. And I really got into The Isley's funk period. In fact, it was such a big influence on me, that when I used to jam with other people in my younger days, much of what we made up was funk. I just wish there was more of it around these days (not only in club dance music).

John: If you mean the Chicks, I was impressed with their first two albums, and my wife likes them, but no, thats not who I mean. Fred, if you mean Townes Van Zandt, then yeah, I agree with you, but somehow I think you mean SRV...
Okay, a brief list: Townes, Guy Clark, Robert Earl Keen, Roy Hubbard, Joe Ely, Jack Ingram, Kelly Willis, Bruce and Charlie Robinson, Buddy Miller, Junior Brown, Steve Earle, Lyle Lovett, Cross Canadian Ragweed, Heather Myles...
Texas music is based on strong songwriting and live performance. It has elements of folk, rock, blues and hard core country in it. A lot of it is lumped into alt. country or americana, but its really its own genre.

Ron,

Since the time of the traveling bard, the common folk related to the guy who came to town, singing songs, sometimes playing an instrument, and telling stories. Thats human.

Meanwhile the nobility supported opera and classical, but there was nothing there the common folk could relate too. Sure opera told a story, in latin!

Guess what ... things havent changed that much. If you want to relate to the teaming masses, you gotta write a song about them.
What the heck does any of this have to do with classical, jazz, rock (or for that matter any other genre of music) being "more" or "less" human? :confused: I'm sorry, but your synapses misfired on this one. All music is human, period. None is more or less human. Indeed, by its very nature music is human, unless we're including/expanding the definition of music to include sounds made by animals, fish, or nature, e.g., wind, thunder, etc.

---------------------------
Ron Party

Originally Posted by Rammitinski
The actual, popular genre of "Techno" is the club music from the mid 80's on....
Yes, exactly. It stared in the late 70's in Detroit. Techno now seems to retroactively include under its umbrella any electronic music with looped instruments: keyboard, synthesizer, drum machine, sequencer, sampler, etc.

What I find interesting is how bands like Kraftwerk and Tangerine Dream get lumped into the same box.

Kraftwerk and Tangerine Dream formed shortly after Pink Floyd. I remember the three being called Psychedelic. Of course Psychedelic is a label not used today. Psychedelic seemed to evolve into Progressive or Art Rock and Electronic. The trouble with labels... And Pink Floyd is a category by itself.

So If you come to the Detroit Techno Music Festival end of May, you will hear club and electronic music with influences of Jazz, Rock & Roll, Progressive, Funk, Motown, Soul, Blues, Ambient, Debussy, Alvin Toffler, etc... And some Dieter and the Sprocketts look-a-likes.

Preliminary 2006 Lineup - Detroit Techno Festival

Photek, leading Jungle DJ from the United Kingdom
Pascal F.E.O.S., pioneering techno DJ from Germany
Derrick Carter, Chicago house music DJ/producer
Rob Acid, German acid techno producer
Ark, minimal techno DJ and first-time visitor to Detroit
Josh Wink, globally recognized techno DJ/producer
Orb, legendary ambient producers
Greenskeeper, rapidly emerging house music band
Tortured Soul, rapidly emerging house music band
Alex Under, German minimal techno artist
Mark Broom, British techno DJ/producer
Pantytec, vastly popular German techno act
Planet of the Drums, America's most popular Jungle DJ/MC ensemble
Krikor, German minimal techno artist
Superpitcher, leading talent from Cologne's Kompakt label
Richie Hawtin, Detroit/Windsor/Berlin techno legend
Collabs: Speedy J/Chris Leibing, European hard techno duo
Dandy Jack, Perlon Records (Berlin) popular live act
Doc Martin, West Coast house music legend
Roy Davis Jr., globally known Chicago acid house pioneer
Markus Guenter, German ambient artist
Klimek, Kompakt Records down-tempo live act
Jay Haze, minimal techno artist
Socks and Sandals, making their Detroit debut
Adam Marshall, international techno DJ/Producer making his Detroit debut
Daniel Bell, Detroit minimal techno legend
Jeremy Caufield, German techno DJ/producer
Donald Glaude, West Coast DJ/producer
Function and Regis, New York hard techno duo
Neil Landstrumm, Veteran Techno producer from Scotland

Guess what ... things havent changed that much. If you want to relate to the teaming masses, you gotta write a song about them.
The teeming masses can all name countless John Williams scores after the first couple of notes.

As for popular/radio music and the teeming masses, all you have to do is write a generic song in whatever copycat style is currently popular. The top of the charts are dominated by utter crap. The Black Eyed Peas recently played here, and filled Arco Arena with thousands of screaming fans...Meanwhile, Jackie Greene (http://www.jackie-greene.com/), a local favorite, is still playing small nightclubs and free shows in the park. Talent wise, Greene is head and shoulders above the overwhelming majority of what the teeming masses are listening to. I swear, if I hear one more Staind-like crap band (that spawns countless drunk-guy posturing at karaoke bars across the land), I'm going to puke.

Sorry, but yours is a losing argument any way you want to spin it...

What the heck does any of this have to do with classical, jazz, rock (or for that matter any other genre of music) being "more" or "less" human? :confused: I'm sorry, but your synapses misfired on this one. All music is human, period. None is more or less human. Indeed, by its very nature music is human, unless we're including/expanding the definition of music to include sounds made by animals, fish, or nature, e.g., wind, thunder, etc.
Ron Party Does that include the CD I just ordered from the planet Meep-zorp?

I'm still trying to think of an opera that's in Latin.

Does that include the CD I just ordered from the planet Meep-zorp?

Nice one. :D Particularly in a threat that is, in part, about progressive rock.

-----------------------------
Ron Party

Never mind Lonwolf, I must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed :D

I have never seen any comercial band that meant every word they sang about and delivered it the way the Sex pistols did.I'm not a fan of these guys, but i watched these guys in concert and putting aside all that stupid crowd behaviour, if there was a working class band that existed in music, again, no band has publically put across that statement or so called statement like they did. Lets face it guys wheather they were good musos or not, or were liked by the majority or not , NO BAND did it publically like them, right or wrong. This band was a statement just like the beatles and all those other greats. Mind you having said that i am a rush fan and a prog rock fan also. If the pistols get this privelage you can bet they fought for every bit of it during them days. Blondie also. I agree, Yes and other bands like Rush and every great band should be there, but to a degree the comercial market saw the pistols as one of the first.

I don't think any rational person who knows anything about rock music could argue against the fact that the Beatles are the most influential rock group in music history, whether you like to listen to them or not. The Beatles have influenced and are still influencing any kid that picks up a guitar and wants to play rock and roll, or sits down and starts writing a rock or pop song. Their influence is virtually incalculable, and thus they can NEVER be overrated because if anything, they will always be underrated by those that can't, don't or won't understand or appreciate their vast influence.
That is totally correct, i for one which was influenced by the Beatles in a huge way. When i was 4 years old in Nottingham, i can remember sitting on dads knee watching Top of the Pops and the rolling stones came on and then the beatles came on, and the difference in there look was not that much, but the difference in there music was incredible. The Beatles, like them or not they were ahead of there time. The reason why i will never be able to play drums like Neil peart or Buddy Rich is because of the Beatles, i liked there music that much that i DID NOT want to listen to anything else. Now if that aint an influence, what is?. N ow imagine how many other people out there that has been affected in just this way, let alone influenced at all. There are a lot of average musos out there. Regards Grassy

I have never seen any comercial band that meant every word they sang about and delivered it the way the Sex pistols did.

You mean like when JR asked "Do you ever feel like you've been cheated??" :D Seriously, I like the Pistols but I'd say I never saw a band that didn't mean almost a single word they sang about, but still delivered it like the Sex Pistols did. Now The Clash, maybe. Which was part of their problem. They were a great band apart from all the earnestness. :p

You mean like when JR asked "Do you ever feel like you've been cheated??" :D Seriously, I like the Pistols but I'd say I never saw a band that didn't mean almost a single word they sang about, but still delivered it like the Sex Pistols did. Now The Clash, maybe. Which was part of their problem. They were a great band apart from all the earnestness. :p

Fred, interesting coment, may i ask why you say they didnt mean almost a single word they sang about. Cheers mate Grassy.

FredProgGH, The inner mounting Flam sounds great. Time for some downloads, keep up the good work. Regards Grassy

Fred, interesting coment, may i ask why you say they didnt mean almost a single word they sang about. Cheers mate Grassy.
Well, actually, I do think they basically meant what they sang about. But my point was that they didn't take things very seriously; it was all basically a big goof to them. Whereas so many other bands like The Clash took themselves and their lyrics oh so VERY seriously. That's more the distinction I meant, and that's why even though The Clash rocked I enjoy bands like The Pistols, Fear and Black Flag more. Hey, thanks for taking a listen to my musical odds and ends!!

Well, actually, I do think they basically meant what they sang about. But my point was that they didn't take things very seriously; it was all basically a big goof to them. Whereas so many other bands like The Clash took themselves and their lyrics oh so VERY seriously. That's more the distinction I meant, and that's why even though The Clash rocked I enjoy bands like The Pistols, Fear and Black Flag more. Hey, thanks for taking a listen to my musical odds and ends!!
Thats a good point really, but i tend to think that when it came to publicity, they were more well, imature rather than not really taking themselves seriously. Lets face it, they really lacked buisness direction. Thats probably why they didn"t last as long as other acts. And plus the drugs played a big part. A tragic story really. But yet again you could be right, how can you take yourself seriously and destroy a money making game like that. A most enjoyable conversation thanks.
Regards Grassy.

And on that note- Greyskies, any luck?? :D
So I tried again this weekend, and after all the oddball codecs I could find, failed, I opened the file in a Hex editor to see if I could find a clue as to what it was. I spit coffee all over my laptop from laughing. The file is empty-- it's 360meg of zeros. Bummer-- I was looking forward to subjecting others to a Shaggs' live performance.

So I tried again this weekend, and after all the oddball codecs I could find, failed, I opened the file in a Hex editor to see if I could find a clue as to what it was. I spit coffee all over my laptop from laughing. The file is empty-- it's 360meg of zeros. Bummer-- I was looking forward to subjecting others to a Shaggs' live performance.
I had all but forgotten about that! Yeah, me, Deeann and a couple other people all decided the file was completely bogus, and I've never been able to dig up any other references to a Shaggs video, so it probably doesn't truly exist. Although apparently the band reformed in recent years and gigs occasionally around Fremont, or wherever they live now. I can't see how it would be the same though.

Edit- according to Wikipedia, it was one gig in 2000 in New York, with NRBQ's drummer sitting in.

I've seen some stills from that show, but would have loved to see it. Although with a 'real' drummer, I'm not sure if they'd sound right.

The idea that you would use songs as a way to comment on society and protest a war, before Dylan and the Beatles was unheard of for the most part.

Great thread, a lot of interesting points have been made & discussed but I'm going to have to call BS on this particular one.

Music had been a vehicle of social commentary & protest for hundreds (if not thousands) of years before the Beatles were born.

Woody Guthrie didn't write This Land is Your Land as a children's patriotic ditty...

You mean you just went through and read this whole, crazy thread?

Man, your head must really hurt!

I've seen some stills from that show, but would have loved to see it. Although with a 'real' drummer, I'm not sure if they'd sound right.

I know- although I have the impression he worked really hard to play it the way- was it Helen??- played it, I'm not sure any actual musician could get that feel :D

You mean you just went through and read this whole, crazy thread?

Man, your head must really hurt!


LOL to be honest I started just skimming the posts that were little more than back & forth circular arguments between a couple of folks. :D

LOL to be honest I started just skimming the posts that were little more than back & forth circular arguments between a couple of folks. :DYeah, those are the parts I was especially referring to. :D

I know- although I have the impression he worked really hard to play it the way- was it Helen??- played it, I'm not sure any actual musician could get that feel :D
You know what they call someone who hangs out with musicians?





A drummer. Ba dump bomp.


(said by someone who's sitting in on drums this weekend)

Thought I would dust off this old thread...

The Stooges have released a new album/CD, The Weirdness, and I believe are doing some touring.

If you have a good book store near by drop in and pick up a copy of the April 2007 "Mojo". Mojo is an English (Great Britain) music magazine.

The issue has two very good articles; one focused on The Stooges and one focused on Iggy Pop. The storys gives incite to the beginnings of Iggy and The Stooges from high school on with side comments on the first 3 Stooge albums by Alice Cooper, Perry Farrell, and Bobby Gillespie. Lots of great pictures too; Iggy being held in submission by Ron Asheton after stabbing himself on stage at "Rodney's Teenage Nightclub" in LA, 1974 etc.

The nice bonus, if you buy the magazine, you get the free CD "STOOGES JUKEBOX". Jukebox is a playlist compiled by Iggy "...reflecting the music that influenced him personally and which impacted on the band during their formative period."

Funny part is there is no reference to Jim Morrison or The Doors. Alice Cooper quotes the only Jim Morrison reference, "The girls loved Iggy. He was the Detroit's Jim Morrison"

I've attached liner notes from the free CD.

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g247/BobCurry/mojocd.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g247/BobCurry/mojocd3.jpg

Wow, that is a killer mix!! Amazing to see Pearls Before Swine in there though, that's pretty obscure! And Rudy Ray Moore :p Great stuff.

Yes it is Fred. And how about the Bedouin Music of Southern Siani. Pearls Before Swine had radio airplay and a following in Detroit and Ann Arbor area during the time. A lot of people bought the albums just for the cover art.

The "Jukebox" CD is well worth the price of the magazine and the storys in the magazine are very good! Also has a good story and interview with Ron Wood and a nice story on Pentangle. Pick it up if you can.

For me, Link Wray, The Last Poets, MC5, with a dash of James Brown thrown together in a blender pretty much gets you The Stooges.

Wow pearls before swine really brings back the sixties.What a strange yet moving voice that lead singer had.

I got inspired by the mention of PBS to do some web hunting and see what happened to them (him). Apparently Tom Rapp became a successful lawyer in the mid 70's but continues to perform and even record sporadically to this day!

Yes it is Fred. And how about the Bedouin Music of Southern Siani. Pearls Before Swine had radio airplay and a following in Detroit and Ann Arbor area during the time. A lot of people bought the albums just for the cover art.

The "Jukebox" CD is well worth the price of the magazine and the storys in the magazine are very good! Also has a good story and interview with Ron Wood and a nice story on Pentangle. Pick it up if you can.

Apparently Ron Wood is not a fan of Led Zeppelin. Who knew?

Along with song credits and politics inside the Rolling Stones as well.

Apparently Ron Wood is not a fan of Led Zeppelin. Who knew?Well, that's OK, I'm not a big fan of the Stones. Although I like Ronnie, and especially the Faces. Maybe Zep was a little too heavy for Rionie??

Ron Wood?

Sorry, every time I hear his name I am reminded of that Mike Meyer's impersonation.
It just slays me.
I'm sure Page/Plant don't lose a lot of sleep over what RW thinks... :D

Ron was the bass player for Jeff Beck back in the "Truth" days, and I remember Beck making comments about feeling ripped off by the Zep..he thought Page copied his concept, right down to the 3rd song on the first LZ album being the same as the 3rd song on Truth. Maybe RW shared that feeling.
For the record, as much as I love Beck, I don't think he was right. Truth was basically a Yardbirds record with a great singer. Led Zeppelin was something brand new.

I got inspired by the mention of PBS to do some web hunting and see what happened to them (him). Apparently Tom Rapp became a successful lawyer in the mid 70's but continues to perform and even record sporadically to this day!

http://www.dirtylinen.com/linen/feature/50rapp.html

Now that's a name that's a blast from the past. I remember that accident Tom mentions in the link above. My brother was the driver of the Sprite.

http://www.dirtylinen.com/linen/feature/50rapp.html

Now that's a name that's a blast from the past. I remember that accident Tom mentions in the link above. My brother was the driver of the Sprite.

Wow! That's a crazy piece of synchronicity, for sure. Great article, thanks for posting it.

I think he's wrong about turntables though. Hard-core audiophiles are going to ensure that the odd mechanical means of sound reproduction will hold out for quite a while I think. I would say rappers as well but I think they are turning away from vinyl to a large degree...

Hey, I'm getting in here way late, but in response to the numerous posts that Yes, ELP, etc. had more talent than the Sex Pistols.

1) Yes, I agree (for the record, I like Yes and ELP, but not Genesis)
2) Rock and Roll isn't about talent. As Jack Black said, it's about "sticking it to the man." And the Sex Pistols win there.