or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Sex Pistols and Blondie in Rock Hall of Fame--Genesis and Yes are not
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sex Pistols and Blondie in Rock Hall of Fame--Genesis and Yes are not - Page 6

post #151 of 691
Punk is not about music!

On a side note, I grew up and still live in Chino, California (35 east of Los Angeles) arguably the punk capitol of the U.S. I still listen to and go to punk shows. I've seen 5 or so waves of punk come and go since 1980. In 1981 my punk buddy had a party in his back yard (a yearly occurrence) in which Social D played. They showed up in the rain in a crappy old van with their crappy equipment and played in the rain to 500 raging kids for $200 and all the beer they could drink. I think Mike Ness owns a city in Orange County or something now. These were a bunch of young guys, not professional musicians, out spreading their message about how F'd upped things were.

I still have the Decline of Western Civilization on Laser Disc. I wish Urgh! A Music War would come out on DVD.

muncey
post #152 of 691
Squonk - you're right about Rick Wakeman in interviews. And he actually is a bit of a card. I heard him in a live interview on KSHE when I was spending some time in St. Louis in 1975. He was guzzling Heinikens' (his preference) during the whole thing and kept belching into the microphone. It was actually pretty memorable. About Genesis - I was kind of saying that they, of all the Prog bands, probably actually DO deserve the recognition of something like the HOF. Oh, and I didn't really mean to leave out Yes' having hits - besides "..Lonely Heart" they had "Roundabout", "Your Move" (sans "All Good People") and "America" which were all edited 45's and were actually Top 40 singles on AM radio (at least in my town). I've actually got them all. I think "Going For The One" was too (and of course "Don't Kill the Whale", but we'll leave that one out!). I wasn't thinking of them when I mentioned Genesis and Tull, but I should have. ELP too, for that matter. Believe it or not, I actually have "Lucky Man"/"Knife Edge" on an originally released 45!
post #153 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammitinski View Post

ELP too, for that matter. Believe it or not, I actually have "Lucky Man"/"Knife Edge" on an originally released 45!

I had that 45. Of course it's long since lost. But I still have all of ELP on LP, except for their newest stuff which of course is on CD. I've had several copies of Brain Salid Surgery on LP through the years, and several versions on CD.
post #154 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutgar View Post

I had that 45. Of course it's long since lost. But I still have all of ELP on LP, except for their newest stuff which of course is on CD. I've had several copies of Brain Salid Surgery on LP through the years, and several versions on CD.

I hear the DVD-Audio of BSS is really good. When are they ever gonna get around to remastering all their other albums, I wonder? (At least the ones before BSS.)
post #155 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch4711 View Post

my own jerky comments. ...


We got it loud and clear....
post #156 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by muncey View Post

Punk is not about music!

I wish Urgh! A Music War would come out on DVD.

I agree. A have a VHS copy, but it's definitely showing signs of age....
post #157 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by squonk View Post

We got it loud and clear....

Now yer catchin' on!
post #158 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by muncey View Post

Punk is not about music!

Also very accurate! Or possibly slightly more accurate, "Punk is not just about music!"

Quote:


I still have the Decline of Western Civilization on Laser Disc. I wish Urgh! A Music War would come out on DVD.

Two words: music rights. That's the big problem with this great film. Really, really, really, really expensive (in more ways than one) to clear it all vs. what sales might be.
post #159 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammitinski View Post

Squonk - you're right about Rick Wakeman in interviews. And he actually is a bit of a card.

Ah, but this has already been stated:

"the only thing Yes fans would want or pay to see him do is to do what he's incredibly talented at--play the keyboards."

Then again, ya might not be a "Yes fan" (bold added for emphasis).
post #160 of 691
Thread Starter 
[quote=squonk


ADD--Genesis as you know had quite a bit of humor in their music from the very beginning, and had a number of songs that poked fun at the English upper class and English politics. Of course it was absurdist humor and somewhat subtle, a lot of literary references etc. You had to be able to open up and read a few books to maybe get many of the references. This was completely missed by the pro-punk prog hating music press which always tried to foist this "boring serious nonhumorous" label on prog rock. And of course a lot of people bought into this stereoypical view and still hold it to this day--see many of the above posts. And of course it was mostly because they simply didn't recognize or bother to understand the parody and absurdist humor in stuff like Get Em Out By Friday. Heck, long before the word punk was even being used, Gabriel had written songs like Battle of Epping Forest and the whole Rael character in Lamb who was a punk before it was fashionable to be punk. And the whole Lamb album is so full of humor and sexual references that guys like Henry Rollins could only dream of writing.

One of the primary reasons I love and appreciate Genesis to this day is the humor in their music, subtle in many instances, but certainly there.[/QUOTE]

.
post #161 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch4711 View Post

Now yer catchin' on!

wish I could say the same. O well, off to view my copy of Yes' 1973 concert complete with Wakeman in full regal cape. Dynamite stuff. Anyone for some moshing? That keyboard interlude during Close to the Edge does it to me every time. I just want to take someone down!
post #162 of 691
lurch: If you're still there, let me pick your brain for a moment. Am I right in saying punk was originally a reaction to how rock was perceived by the ones who first punked? A music that no longer spoke to their emotions, so they created their own? If so, there seems to me to be 2 components to the rock punks rejected. One was the whole hype of what was called arena rock-the venues growing bigger and bigger, the shows more and more about the "experience" as much as the actual music. Rock stars on mag. covers, etc. The other component was technical expertise, where an important part of enjoying the music was the belief that you were listening to "the best ever" guitar, drums, keyboard, etc. Was punk a rejection of both ideas? In other words, could someene like Duane Allman for example, be unable to play punk no matter how much he wanted to because he was just too good a musician? Does playing music "anyone can play" necesarily rule out actuallly being extremely skilled at your craft? I'm sincere in the question, I'm not trying to bait you, so I hope you get what I'm driving at...
post #163 of 691
lonwolf----I was in a punk band in 1977 so I reckon I'm qualified to answer your questions.

Yes, Punk was most certainly a reaction to stupifying bands like Kansas, Foreigner, Boston, ELP, Yes and all that ilk. It was a return to basics, remember that less time passed between the birth of Rock and Roll in the mid 50s and the beginning of Punk in the mid 70s than has passed between the beginning of Punk and now. Many punkers had grown up hearing Elvis, Little Richard, Chuck Berry and such on the radio every day, to them Rock and Roll roots were a reality not an affectation.

I don't think punkers had anything against being a good musician as such, they just didn't like overplaying and virtuosity for it's own sake nor did they like long endless noodling on stage.

Like the guy from Talking Heads said when the Ramones didn't participate in a RRHOF jam session---"The Ramones don't jam."
post #164 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Brennan View Post

Yes, Punk was most certainly a reaction to stupifying bands like Kansas, Foreigner, Boston, ELP, Yes and all that ilk.


See. Exhibit A. More stereotypical namecalling and misinformation which I am now forced to correct. Why stupifying? What's that supposed to mean?

Kansas was a bar band out of the plains of Kansas that toiled for years on the road playing hard rock and roll and they rocked just as hard as any punk band. Listen to their first few albums. Foreigner didn't have a hit until the late 70's, long after the first punk bands could have "reacted" to them in the early 70s. Boston's first album came out in 75.

The fact of the matter is that punk was really more of a reaction against the psychedelic noodlings of bands like the Grateful Dead, who would jam for 20-30 minutes on one song. They were also a reaction to the excesses of bands like Led Zeppelin, who championed long guitar solos and became representative of rock star excess far more than a Yes or ELP. The Stooges and MC5 and Velvet Underground were all making albums BEFORE or at the same time as Yes and ELP and before they were very popular in the US for sure. So while some of the later punk bands may have reacted against the idea of virtuosity and musicianship in bands like ELP and Yes, the "reaction" wasn't limited to progressive rock, which was by and large an underground music genre of its own with limited radio exposure save for a few songs of a few bands (Yes--Roundabout, Pink Floyd Money etc).

Your characterization of punk as purely a reaction against progressive rock (which by the way Boston and Foreigner are not) is simply wrong and stereotypical, and perpetuates these mistaken stereotypes which you apparantly bought hook line and sinker from the prog hating pro-punk music press from decades ago.

So in partial answer to lonwolf's question, yes, true punk would be antithetical also to Duane Allman solos and BB King solos and vitually any jazz great who believed musicianship and virtuosity were important. And while there was nothing wrong with the idea of back to basics roots rock which inspired many guys to pick up guitars and start a band (ie, see my Springsteen posts), the side effect of a "we don't need to be good or learn music or go beyond 3 chord" mentality is that you created a whole bunch of bands that absolutely simply sucked and were completely talentless. Ultimately, as I have stated many times, talent wins out. Bands like the Talking Heads were talented and moved beyond the restrictive shackles of punk of course. But there was a whole lot of worthless sludge created in the name of punk simply due to a lack of talent IMO. Exh A was the Sex Pistols.
post #165 of 691
Wow - ya try to get out, but keep getting sucked in (or is that suckered?). Anyway lonewolf - yeah, first off, Tom predates me by a couple of years, so I would be inclined to defer to him anyway. But yes, I would agree whole-heartedly with what he said.

Squonk - First off, Tom didn't mention prog rock - he mentioned bands. BTW: lots of punks didn't even bother to read any pro-punk press at first that covered music "theory" issues, so I don't know why you are so hung up on that all punks just bought into some punk press thing. Punks liked the atmosphere and music. Heck, most of the pro-punk press (at least earlier on) tended to make fun of themselves in their coverage of stuff. I think you just don't get a lot of it.

Punk was indeed a reaction against what rock-n-roll was becoming. If you think that is wrong, then you just don't know better (no problem with that, but take the opportunity to learn). And if you'd rather ignore that component because it goes against bands you like, then so be it. But don't state that what he is saying is wrong, because it most cetainly ain't.

And be careful about bringing BB King into this. That also shows your lack of knowledge. Don't forget that he played with X fairly early on (not recorded that I know of, but live), and has made fun of his own musical limitations repeatedly. BB King (who I am a fan of) actually liked what was going on with punk.

"you created a whole bunch of bands that absolutely simply sucked and were completely talentless. Ultimately, as I have stated many times, talent wins out."

A lack of talent does NOT equal "sucked." If the music speaks to someone's gut (who referenced that here - heh), then it works. It may not for you, but that doesn't mean they universally sucked.

And Talking Heads started out as sort of a non-punk punk band - they didn't "move there." I think they kind of got lumped in with them because there was nowhere else they could play and nowhere else they fit in genre-wise.

"Kansas was a bar band out of the plains of Kansas that toiled for years on the road playing hard rock and roll and they rocked just as hard as any punk band. "

First off, this is just funny. Secondly, if you're inclined to make a statement that includes "rocked just as hard as any punk band" and mean it seriously would just further prove that you probably just don't get punk. Nothing wrong with that, but a key component of what this discussion has turned into.
post #166 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by squonk View Post

wish I could say the same.

Oh, I thought by locating it you were catching on. I stand corrected.

Quote:


Anyone for some moshing? That keyboard interlude during Close to the Edge does it to me every time. I just want to take someone down!

DeeAnn and I are curious how you mosh to a keyboard solo... or even pogo
post #167 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch4711 View Post

Wow - ya try to get out, but keep getting sucked in (or is that suckered?). Anyway lonewolf - yeah, first off, Tom predates me by a couple of years, so I would be inclined to defer to him anyway. But yes, I would agree whole-heartedly with what he said.

Squonk - First off, Tom didn't mention prog rock - he mentioned bands. BTW: lots of punks didn't even bother to read any pro-punk press at first that covered music "theory" issues, so I don't know why you are so hung up on that all punks just bought into some punk press thing. Punks liked the atmosphere and music. Heck, most of the pro-punk press (at least earlier on) tended to make fun of themselves in their coverage of stuff. I think you just don't get a lot of it.

Punk was indeed a reaction against what rock-n-roll was becoming. If you think that is wrong, then you just don't know better (no problem with that, but take the opportunity to learn). And if you'd rather ignore that component because it goes against bands you like, then so be it. But don't state that what he is saying is wrong, because it most cetainly ain't.

And be careful about bringing BB King into this. That also shows your lack of knowledge. Don't forget that he played with X fairly early on (not recorded that I know of, but live), and has made fun of his own musical limitations repeatedly. BB King (who I am a fan of) actually liked what was going on with punk.

"you created a whole bunch of bands that absolutely simply sucked and were completely talentless. Ultimately, as I have stated many times, talent wins out."

A lack of talent does NOT equal "sucked." If the music speaks to someone's gut (who referenced that here - heh), then it works. It may not for you, but that doesn't mean they universally sucked.

And Talking Heads started out as sort of a non-punk punk band - they didn't "move there." I think they kind of got lumped in with them because there was nowhere else they could play and nowhere else they fit in genre-wise.

"Kansas was a bar band out of the plains of Kansas that toiled for years on the road playing hard rock and roll and they rocked just as hard as any punk band. "

First off, this is just funny. Secondly, if you're inclined to make a statement that includes "rocked just as hard as any punk band" and mean it seriously would just further prove that you probably just don't get punk. Nothing wrong with that, but a key component of what this discussion has turned into.

So to sum up, you who by your own admission have narrow tastes and no progressive music in your collection, get it, while I who have pretty wide ranging collection of music including a fair amount of punk and post punk music, don't get it and just can't understand punk. I see. I'd normally bother going through all the misstatements and misinterpretation of what I said, but I can see at this point its not worth it. And I am laughing too.
post #168 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by squonk View Post

So to sum up, you who by your own admission have narrow tastes and no progressive music in your collection, get it, while I who have pretty wide ranging collection of music including a fair amount of punk and post punk music, don't get it and just can't understand punk. I see.

By your statements and knowledge conveyed in them - yep! Just because someone owns a Black Flag album or Ramones album doesn't mean that they inherently actually know much about what was going on with punk. This is really all proved by you telling Tom he's wrong in exactly those words. When he's absolutely not. Then again, I don't know everything about prog rock - and frankly, I don't know everything about punk, but I do know more than just a fair amount and have been around it for about a quarter of a century or so now - and that's not just buying records to listen to every now and then when I want to feel rebelious or something, but going to shows all of those years, personally knowing bands, not just listening to the "big bands," etc. I also do know something about some (many) of the prog-rock bands (and other bands that I think are boring). The difference is, I'll admit it and I am OK with that. I am often interested in learning more, too. You want to convey that you already know everything about everything when by your own statements, you don't (at least in the case of punk, although you've made it clear where prog-rock fans, or at least Yes fans, stand in their depth of caring about what the bands actually have to say, which is something I have learned from this thread and find quite enlightening and explains more than just a couple of things).

Quote:


I'd normally bother going through all the misstatements and misinterpretation of what I said, but I can see at this point its not worth it. And I am laughing too.

As you should be - and should have been from the start (if you weren't). Musically, you think some stuff sucks that I like - I think some (or a lot, based only on this thread) stuff sucks that you like. It really doesn't matter in the end. Although I am interested in trying to "set the record straight" when history is being revised - particularly when that revision is originating from people like Malcolm.

Again, institutions like the HOF (and the Grammy's and on and on) probably shouldn't even really exist, though. If a band is considered great by comparable institutions that can't be done away with at this point (ie. the press and "rock historians"), it will be so noted. But it shouldn't matter to a fan one way or another in the end. But then again, maybe that's just a stupid sucky punk attitude or something. I dunno.
post #169 of 691
[quote=squonk]So to sum up, you who by your own admission have narrow tastes and no progressive music in your collection, get it, while I who have pretty wide ranging collection of music including a fair amount of punk and post punk music, don't get it and just can't understand punk.[quote]

Adding this to be perfectly clear:
Yeah - that's pretty much correct. Just because one has a wide ranging collection doesn't necessarily mean they know much about anything in one particular genre - culturally or musically - and that's a thing with punk - it can be both. And that's OK. No problem with that, as I have already stated. Yeah, I am pretty focused on punk. I have no problem having a narrow focus (this ignoring my fondness for swing, early blues, Motown, 60's girl groups, some 60's garage, early industrial, a lot of New Wave, pretty much all No Wave, and a few other things). That doesn't mean I am some all-knowing historical expert on punk or anything, but I do know an awful lot *from* that narrowing. That sort of just makes sense when you're looking at "specializing" (a pretty lame pompous word in this case, but used for lack of a better that my battered brain can grab at right now...).
post #170 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurch4711 View Post

As you should be - and should have been from the start (if you weren't).


I started out just chuckling but by the end it turned into a hearty guffaw.
post #171 of 691
geesh, I asked a simple question...First off, Tom I would like to thank you for your thoughtful comments. My question was asked in all sincerity and I appreaciate that you replied in kind. I don't know where to go from here. I really wanted to discuss this further but if all that results are slams and personal attacks, whats the point?
post #172 of 691
It has gotten rather ridiculous, hasn't it?. Different people have different reasons for liking different music. I, personally, don't get caught up in fads or genres (to the extent that there is such a thing). I guess that's good, as I don't want to come off as a complete stubborn, single-minded, self-righteous, snobby ass (like, unfortunately, some critics do). There's quality music and lousy music for every type. I just like music that's "good" for it's type. And then again, I probably have what could be considered "guilty pleasures", as I think most people do. Maybe I'm just getting older, but I don't pigeonhole myself musically. If I like something, it's because it sounds good to me, not because I feel I need to belong to some "group". If it still sounds good to me 20 years from now, even if it's not the "in" thing anymore, then great. I just put it on and get into it. I have no need to justify my tastes by imposing them on anyone else, and just ask the same in return. If somebody puts down what I like I don't feel threatened in any way by that. Nothing's going to change my mind about the music in any way. Musical tastes are personal, and I actually like to keep it that way to avoid situations like the above. Nobody's forcing me to listen to their music. (Well, at least right now. My last apartment was another story, but that's one of the reasons why I'm not there anymore. And if I had to work at the local McDonalds, I'd probably go crazy.) There's always headphones and Ipods for at home or on the go. Oh, and by the way, I saw Kansas twice and they actually DO rock pretty hard at times - I don't think a lot of people are aware of that - that "girlie", sappy, highly commercial Dust in the Wind stuff didn't come out till their 5th album. Masque sure rocks pretty good! It just rocks in a different way than punk, that's all. As long as it doesn't talk about (seriously) killing other people, refer to woman in a misogynistically negative, direspectful way, isn't profanity laced and isn't all about bragging about oneself, I don't really have any problems with it, even though it still might just not be my cup of tea. Course, everyone is different. That's what makes the world go 'round.
post #173 of 691
Well I'm just glad the pedantic ole Squonk is around here to set me straight on what I and the other punkers I played with and hung with were thinking back in the day, evidently we didn't know our own minds.

I wonder what he was doing in 1977.

As for the Sex Pistols musical talent, well they did manage one of the best guitar solos ever in "EMI". They had a pretty good guitarist and a good drummer too. And some good songs. The first time I heard "God Save the Queen" I wanted to punch somebody wealthy in the face. That's entertainment.

By the way, I was a bouncer at the Aragon Ballroom, Chicago's premier hard-rock and metal venue, during the 70s and 80s and I saw damned near everybody, saw them evolve too. And Kansas always overplayed and had too many time changes for my taste. Same with Styx though Tommy Shaw later had a VERY hard-rocking band that I saw open for Rush and IMO blew Rush away. And Rush live was a very formidable band, very formidable indeed.
post #174 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Brennan View Post

Well I'm just glad the pedantic ole Squonk is around here to set me straight on what I and the other punkers I played with and hung with were thinking back in the day, evidently we didn't know our own minds.

I wonder what he was doing in 1977.

As for the Sex Pistols musical talent, well they did manage one of the best guitar solos ever in "EMI". They had a pretty good guitarist and a good drummer too. And some good songs. The first time I heard "God Save the Queen" I wanted to punch somebody wealthy in the face. That's entertainment.

By the way, I was a bouncer at the Aragon Ballroom, Chicago's premier hard-rock and metal venue, during the 70s and 80s and I saw damned near everybody, saw them evolve too. And Kansas always overplayed and had too many time changes for my taste. Same with Styx though Tommy Shaw later had a VERY hard-rocking band that I saw open for Rush and IMO blew Rush away. And Rush live was a very formidable band, very formidable indeed.

I didn't tell you what you thought or played. I simply disagreed with your premise and simplification of what punk rock was reacting to. My post was a sincere disagreement about a stereotype you are perpetuating. But if you want to go through life believing all punk music was a direct reaction to Kansas ELP and Yes, go ahead. If that makes you feel better and makes you want to punch out more wealthy people, it sounds like you have the resume to keep up the good work.

And I already told lurch what I was doing back in 1977. I was moshing to long extended virtuoso keyboard solos by guys in capes.
post #175 of 691
Okay, first a confession. Saw JR on Conan way back in the early 90's (i think). The Allmans were the musical guests, and when asked who the SP were a reaction against JR sneeringly refered to my boys as overblown crap. And I know it was at least part put on and an attempt to be outrageous but...I kept wishing Warren or Greg (big guys) would come out and grab him by his geeky neck. ("You want primal, I'll show you primal.").So I know a little about what squonk is feeling. But the thing is, I personally feel the ABB are more about feeling than the SP were. But I also accept others might disagree. Duane never noodled, no matter how long his solos were, and in his prime Dickey didn't either. But their image grew to overwhelm the music, I agree, and they were one of the originators of arena rock, so some criticism is justified. And I understand wanting to get back to the basics, how r+r started. But the thing is, some of the originals were also good musicians. Tom, you mentioned Elvis and Berry among others as inspiation for punk. Never cared much for Elvis, but I have to admit he had a great voice, and scotty was a whale of a guitair player. And Berry was no Clapton but he had an unique style, definately no slouch. My point being not just anybody could form a band and hope to duplicate the sound of early rock. And thats where my 2 primary questions come from. Was punk more of a rebellion to the mega tours and overhyped stage shows than a music that had its own purpose? And, almost by defination, would a good punk band have to know only a few good chords?
Or, to put it another way: to listen to most prog. rock acts one has to think one is listening to a great musician. There isn't much point to ELP( who I admit to liking) or Yes or even the allmans if you don't fully believe they're playing music most folks couldn't do. Is punk solely trying to be music anyone can play? Or am I missing something? Because I can't help feeling punk is as much about hype as prog. rock is-its just another type.
Whew,,,,, does any of that make any sense?
post #176 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonwolf615 View Post

And thats where my 2 primary questions come from. Was punk more of a rebellion to the mega tours and overhyped stage shows than a music that had its own purpose? And, almost by defination, would a good punk band have to know only a few good chords?
Or, to put it another way: to listen to most prog. rock acts one has to think one is listening to a great musician. There isn't much point to ELP( who I admit to liking) or Yes or even the allmans if you don't fully believe they're playing music most folks couldn't do. Is punk solely trying to be music anyone can play? Or am I missing something? Because I can't help feeling punk is as much about hype as prog. rock is-its just another type.
Whew,,,,, does any of that make any sense?

This is a very difficult thing to answer, because there are many different answers...

For me, early punk was a rebellion against many different things, for different reasons. The growth of large arena rock concerts (and the associated belief that you had to be "special" to become a rock star or make music) was reason for some. Saccharine ballads ("You Light Up My Life", for example) was another. Disco...

Another reason for punk was the ability for anyone to pick up an instrument and rail against whatever they felt like railing against. Honestly, I'd liken this aspect of punk to the early folk/coffeehouse artists of the 60's, many of whom could barely sing or play their instrument, but would get up there and sing about what was going on around them.

Although certainly not true of the entire genre, for many artists punk was protest music, and was highly political in nature. For others, it was simply fun, fast, and energetic...and a way to create something without being "marketable."

The idea that you had to play poorly to be considered punk is not accurate. Elvis Costello is considered by many to be an early "punk" pioneer, and he's loaded with talent. There are many other examples of artists or bands who were quite talented musically, but were playing punk for part (or most) of their careers. There's actually a pretty wide variety of punk styles and sub-genres...as there are with any genre of music. Just as you can't lump all "country" artists together, it's equally impossibe to lump all "punk" artists together.

Tha's my 2-cents...
post #177 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonwolf615 View Post

Or, to put it another way: to listen to most prog. rock acts one has to think one is listening to a great musician. There isn't much point to ELP( who I admit to liking) or Yes or even the allmans if you don't fully believe they're playing music most folks couldn't do.


I have to disagree with you a bit here if I may. I listen to stuff like Yes and Genesis and the Allman Bros and Talking Heads and Sonic Youth for all the same reasons--because I like the way it sounds. I really don't listen solely because I think, wow, this is stuff not many people can play, although with progressive rock I am sure I am attracted to it partly because I like the more complicated musical structure which can be unique, different and pleasing to the ear. Obviously the better someone is at their craft, the more enjoyment I would get from the music. But there is a lot of stuff like avant garde free form jazz that would be technically hard to play, but not pleasing to my ear, and thus I would pass on it. So I disagree that prog rock is all about listening to something difficult or complex.

But I'd rather hear someone who knows how to play a few chords tackle the guitar break on Firth of Fifth than someone who can't play a lick. So of course, as I have said, talent matters, at least for me. I generally don't listen to music so I can find someone's skull to bash in, so I guess I am different than some other posters in that respect. You are right that the Allman Bros and blues music is about feel and soul and spirit, and again, the better Allman and Dickie Betts are at playing their instruments, the more enjoyment most people will get from the music.

I also think in its own way prog rock too is about soul, feel and spirit in a different way. It may be more structured in some instances than blues or jazz, but I have been to many a live prog rock concert where you can feel something special being communicated from artist to spectator which is just as powerful as a bunch of guys slogging it out in a mosh pit. And of course there are so many different facets of prog rock that is free form or improvisational (the whole rock-in-opposition movement in prog) so pigeonholing prog is just as dangerous as pigeonholing other forms of music.
post #178 of 691
"If that makes you feel better and makes you want to punch out more wealthy people, it sounds like you have the resume to keep up the good work."

Oh I do indeed, I've dropped many a man with a single blow, at a Thin Lizzy show I knocked a college jock head over heels, like in a cartoon. Of course I'm old and fairly decrepit now.

But the point is that one thing Punk was about was rage and aggression and I felt working-class rage and aggression in spades. Another musical outlet for such feelings is Heavy Metal and "extended mustache" Southern rock and Country.

Now you seem a rather snippy type so maybe you didn't have those feelings or understand them. Maybe you never had anything to be angry about, I dunno. You like to theorize and dance, I liked to act and play. And I still play my drums, bass and piano every day.
post #179 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Brennan View Post

"If that makes you feel better and makes you want to punch out more wealthy people, it sounds like you have the resume to keep up the good work."

Oh I do indeed, I've dropped many a man with a single blow, at a Thin Lizzy show I knocked a college jock head over heels, like in a cartoon. Of course I'm old and fairly decrepit now.

But the point is that one thing Punk was about was rage and aggression and I felt working-class rage and aggression in spades. Another musical outlet for such feelings is Heavy Metal and "extended mustache" Southern rock and Country.

Now you seem a rather snippy type so maybe you didn't have those feelings or understand them. Maybe you never had anything to be angry about, I dunno. You like to theorize and dance, I liked to act and play. And I still play my drums, bass and piano every day.

Well actually I'm not much of a dancer at all, and while I like to discuss music history, I don't listen because of any theory, but because I simply want to hear good music. Nothing really more complicated than that.

As far as rage and aggression, I suppose when I was younger I used sports as my outlet for that. There is no better feeling in the world than absolutely nailing some metal head and grinding him into the ground on the football field when I was in high school in the mid 70's. Come to think of it, there weren't that many punks and metalheads on the football team though. I suppose I kind of matured and grew out of that "need to bash some skull" rage mentality as I got older and well, matured. But you sound like a real tough guy so I guess I better watch myself next time I'm in my old stomping grounds of Chi-town huh.

BTW, getting back to the original subject of this thread, we've heard a lot about music you obviously don't like, how bout some you do like. Big Blondie fan are ya?
post #180 of 691
Squonk---Nowadays I listen to old rock and roll, Soul music and showtunes. My favorite musicals are South Pacific, My Fair Lady and West Side Story.

My favorite song from South Pacific is "Younger than Springtime" followed closely by "Some Enchanted Evening" and "Wonderful Guy".

I also like movie soundtrack music, I often watch pictures jsut to hear the music. Among my favorite writers are Korngold, Rozka and Elmer Bernstein, my favorite soundtracks are Ben-Hur and Captain from Castile. Randy Newman did a great job on The Natural, it runs in the family.

Blondie was OK but hardly HOF material IMO. Debby Harry was quite a dish though.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Sex Pistols and Blondie in Rock Hall of Fame--Genesis and Yes are not