The least virtuoso progressive rock bands - Jethro Tull and Genesis
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
are the least virtuosos. Yes, Pink Floyd, ELP, Rush, King Crimson and
even marginally prog bands like The Who, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath,
Led Zeppelin are all technically much stronger than these 2.
My question to ROCK fans
- Does that fact that Genesis and Jethro Tull are more arty (more
meaningful and socially relevant lyrics) than the rest and less wanky
than the rest make you like Genesis and Jethro Tull better?
My question to PROG fans
- Does that fact that Genesis and Jethro Tull are more arty (more
meaningful and socially relevant lyrics) than the rest and less wanky
than the rest make you like Genesis and Jethro Tull lesser?
Tony Elka
<prose1235-0FC91...@news.eternal-september.org>,
poisoned rose <pros...@aol.com> wrote:
> I know you're a Pink Floyd fanboy, but it's odd that you're not aiming
> the same skepticism at Floyd. Relatively speaking, they're the most
> instrumentally inept of all the above names. Gilmour is the only member
> with widely admired "chops" and, in his case, it's more about being
> soulful and having a pleasing, distinctive style than being someone who
> can dazzle with speed.
Richard Wright's bandmates use to mock his combo organ solos as "Turkish
taffy" in the early days of the Floyd.
Tony
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> flash. Similarly, Tull also has had a few snazzy drummers and
> keyboardists. And of course, Anderson has his flute.
>
> You're also underestimating the value of melody. I'd say Genesis wrote
> the prettiest melodies of all the prog bands, regardless of whether the
> melody was vocal or instrumental. Their durable gift of melody was why
> they moved so smoothly into the pop realm. And in Tull's case, their
> prog-appeal "wankiness" comes not so much from showoff solos, but from
> expertly playing complex songs with a lot of irregular, jarring phrasing
> and time changes. I don't think you have any understanding of time
> signatures, so such issues are probably lost on you.
I would highly disagree with Genesis being able to write melodies...
They were initially a Moody Blues wannabe and they sucked at that.
Genesis later on found their own style where they could put melodic
instrumental passages between songs. I would still not call those
songs as melodies. Beatles, Beach Boys, Bee Gees, Moody Blues made
hummable melodies. Genesis didn't have the talent to write hummable
melodies. But they could do the arty story telling stuff very well...
especially Peter Gabriel.
Jethro Tull were more like Led Zeppelin like... but more arty and
philosophical. I think Led Zeppelin was however much more talented.
They just didn't want to venture into arty story telling mode of
Jethro Tull.
>
> I know you're a Pink Floyd fanboy, but it's odd that you're not aiming
> the same skepticism at Floyd. Relatively speaking, they're the most
> instrumentally inept of all the above names. Gilmour is the only member
> with widely admired "chops" and, in his case, it's more about being
> soulful and having a pleasing, distinctive style than being someone who
> can dazzle with speed.
I think Wright and Waters were very good with their instruments.
Whatever songs Wright wrote was keyboard based and had solos and
riffs. Same with Waters.. he played bass leads on almost all songs he
wrote early on. I think early Pink Floyd is where they show all their
flash. Later on they relied too much on synth and other studio
trickery thats why their wankiness is underrated.
If you really wanna see how well they can wank, watch Live At Pompeii.
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> In article
> <prose1235-0FC914.13414220022...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> poisoned rose <prose1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I know you're a Pink Floyd fanboy, but it's odd that you're not aiming
> > the same skepticism at Floyd. Relatively speaking, they're the most
> > instrumentally inept of all the above names. Gilmour is the only member
> > with widely admired "chops" and, in his case, it's more about being
> > soulful and having a pleasing, distinctive style than being someone who
> > can dazzle with speed.
>
> Richard Wright's bandmates use to mock his combo organ solos as "Turkish
> taffy" in the early days of the Floyd.
Oh really?
Gilmour has changed his mind then...
"In the welter of arguments about who or what was Pink Floyd, Rick's
enormous input was frequently forgotten. He was gentle, unassuming and
private but his soulful voice and playing were vital, magical
components of our most recognised Pink Floyd sound. I have never
played with anyone quite like him. The blend of his and my voices and
our musical telepathy reached their first major flowering in 1971 on
'Echoes'. In my view all the greatest PF moments are the ones where he
is in full flow. After all, without 'Us and Them' and 'The Great Gig
in the Sky', both of which he wrote, what would 'The Dark Side of the
Moon' have been? Without his quiet touch the album 'Wish You Were
Here' would not quite have worked."
Waters is also singing praises of him...
"The intriguing, jazz influenced, modulations and voicings so familiar
in 'Us and Them' and 'Great Gig in the Sky,' which lent those
compositions both their extraordinary humanity and their majesty, are
omnipresent in all the collaborative work the four of us did in those
times. Rick's ear for harmonic progression was our bedrock. "
Also Nick Mason
". He was by far the quietest of the band, right from day one. And, I
think, probably harder to get to know than the rest of us... It's
almost that George Harrison thing. You sort of forget that they did a
lot more than perhaps they’re given credit for."
"Wright's style fused jazz, neoclassical and experimental music
influences, which complemented the simple harmonic structures of the
more blues and folk-based songs of Roger Waters and David Gilmour. As
a keyboardist, he was more interested in complementing each piece with
organ or synthesizer layers and tasteful piano or electric piano
passages. Unlike his contemporaries Rick Wakeman, Tony Banks or Keith
Emerson, he opted for solo playing only occasionally, notably in "Atom
Heart Mother", "Echoes", "Any Colour You Like", "Shine On You Crazy
Diamond" Parts 1–5 and 6–9, "Welcome to the Machine", "Dogs", "Run
Like Hell" and "Keep Talking". Wright was known for his ghostly,
Karlheinz Stockhausen-influenced[citation needed] atmospheric textures
such as the Leslie piano arpeggios at the beginning of "Echoes", the
echoed Farfisa Organ in the live versions of "Careful with That Axe,
Eugene" and "Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun", the
distinctive Minimoog solos in "Any Colour You Like" and, more
famously, "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" and the jazzy electric piano
passages in "Money", "Time" and "Sheep". In "A Saucerful of Secrets"
and "Sysyphus" he experimented with 'treated piano'. "Sysyphus" also
made extensive use of Mellotron sounds, something of a rarity in the
Pink Floyd canon. Wright also used Indian modal scales in "Set the
Controls for the Heart of the Sun" and "Matilda Mother""
Tony Elka
<e59b765c-cb4d-42a6...@z19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 3:45�pm, Tony Elka <shadowl...@shadowlane.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <prose1235-0FC914.13414220022...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > �poisoned rose <prose1...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I know you're a Pink Floyd fanboy, but it's odd that you're not aiming
> > > the same skepticism at Floyd. Relatively speaking, they're the most
> > > instrumentally inept of all the above names. Gilmour is the only member
> > > with widely admired "chops" and, in his case, it's more about being
> > > soulful and having a pleasing, distinctive style than being someone who
> > > can dazzle with speed.
> >
> > Richard Wright's bandmates use to mock his combo organ solos as "Turkish
> > taffy" in the early days of the Floyd.
>
> Oh really?
>
> Gilmour has changed his mind then...
People usually say nice things about friends after they pass on.
I enjoyed Rick Wright's contributions to Pink Floyd, from Paint Box,
Remember a Day and See Saw through DSOTM, WTWH and Animals. But after
listening to both of his solo albums repeatedly, I've concluded that the
man wasn't a particularly great song writer or a virtuoso player. Not
that he ever claimed to be.
A pleasant fellow in general, and I was saddened when he died.
Tony
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> acknowledge that your pet bands are stronger in some ways and weaker in
> others. You never did. And your absolute assertion that Genesis couldn't
> write hummable melodies is, um, dubious, given that the band had
> multiple radio hits very much due to those songs having "hummability."
Not as a prog band in the 70s with Gabriel. When Phill Collins took
over and Hackett left as well, they simplified their sound and could
write simple melodies.
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 3:45 pm, Tony Elka <shadowl...@shadowlane.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <prose1235-0FC914.13414220022...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > poisoned rose <prose1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I know you're a Pink Floyd fanboy, but it's odd that you're not aiming
> > > > the same skepticism at Floyd. Relatively speaking, they're the most
> > > > instrumentally inept of all the above names. Gilmour is the only member
> > > > with widely admired "chops" and, in his case, it's more about being
> > > > soulful and having a pleasing, distinctive style than being someone who
> > > > can dazzle with speed.
>
> > > Richard Wright's bandmates use to mock his combo organ solos as "Turkish
> > > taffy" in the early days of the Floyd.
>
> > Oh really?
>
> > Gilmour has changed his mind then...
>
> People usually say nice things about friends after they pass on.
>
> I enjoyed Rick Wright's contributions to Pink Floyd, from Paint Box,
> Remember a Day and See Saw through DSOTM, WTWH and Animals. But after
> listening to both of his solo albums repeatedly, I've concluded that the
> man wasn't a particularly great song writer or a virtuoso player. Not
> that he ever claimed to be.
Yeah his solo album after he was in deep cocaine addition and was
suffering a writers block. He wasn't the same guy after Wish You Were
Here and both Gilmour and Waters took over the reigns. His
contributions to songwriting in Animals and The Wall is minimal to say
the least. The guy was fired from the band for being a slob FFS! And
you listen to a lazy album he put out when he was past it and jump
into conclusion?
Mike Dickson
> I think Wright and Waters were very good with their instruments.
That sort of displays your level of critical observation, you silly cunt.
--
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh
Tony Elka
<93a7c6ad-9dab-4336...@a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yeah his solo album after he was in deep cocaine addition and was
> suffering a writers block. He wasn't the same guy after Wish You Were
> Here and both Gilmour and Waters took over the reigns. His
> contributions to songwriting in Animals and The Wall is minimal to say
> the least. The guy was fired from the band for being a slob FFS! And
> you listen to a lazy album he put out when he was past it and jump
> into conclusion?
Oh, it's you again, isn't it? The nightmare that never ends.
Even Bush/Cheney only lasted eight years.
At least this thread isn't cross-posted to that poor tennis group.
Tony
Ray
wrote:
You are a moron. Steve Hackett was one of the most technically capable
guitarists in the prog rock movement.
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
Peter Gabriel did not have a great range, Phil Collins was technically
just okay. Mike Rutherford was not a vituoso by any means. Only Tony
Banks can really lay a claim. There are many great guitarists out
there who are technically more capable than Steve Hackett.
Mark Rae
news:4d9ac0e2-1489-49c6...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> You are a moron.
He's the reason that you have a killfile.
TheWalrusWasDanny
> I would highly disagree with Genesis being able to write melodies...
> They were initially a Moody Blues wannabe and they sucked at that.
Bollocks.
Genesis were utterly melodic which is why I like them..the Englishness
helps...but the whole genius of Genesis was because of the
melodies...I despise un melodic stuff..call me an old romantic but if
you put on The Cinema Show I'll holler along with the rest of
them..."(sings) Romeo locks his basement flat and scurries up the
stair........"
Danny
TheWalrusWasDanny
> Not as a prog band in the 70s with Gabriel. When Phill Collins took
> over and Hackett left as well, they simplified their sound and could
"And then there were 3" has fab and complex melodies on it...what are
you talking about Raja?
Meanwhlie W&W is a wonderful album (yes I know Hackett is there) but
it's great.
Danny
TheWalrusWasDanny
> Peter Gabriel did not have a great range, Phil Collins was technically
> just okay. Mike Rutherford was not a vituoso by any means. Only Tony
> Banks can really lay a claim. There are many great guitarists out
You're talking bollocks Raja..utter bollocks...
Danny
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
wrote:
> > Not as a prog band in the 70s with Gabriel. When Phill Collins took
> > over and Hackett left as well, they simplified their sound and could
> > write simple melodies.-
>
> "And then there were 3" has fab and complex melodies on it...what are
> you talking about Raja?
What about Duke, Abacus. All the fabulous melodies that PR is talking
about is from the 80s.
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
wrote:
> > I would highly disagree with Genesis being able to write melodies...
> > They were initially a Moody Blues wannabe and they sucked at that.
>
> Bollocks.
>
> Genesis were utterly melodic
BassPlyr23
wrote:
Mike Rutherford not a virtuoso? Have you ever heard his bass playing,
especially on "The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway" album? The guy's
amazing! Granted, he's not a great lead guitarist, but his bass
playing matches up to anything Chris Squire has done. Although he's
still a step short of The Great God Entwistle.
Good thing you backtracked and gave Tony Banks the props he has due.
This way, I can only call you an AMAZING asshole, which on my scale
is a step short of being a COMPLETE asshole.
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> of all the prog bands. Even before their pop phase.
>
> They have pieces so lovely that I get a lump in my throat. To name just
> one which I often return to, "Ripples" is simply GORGEOUS. The
> instrumental work on "Firth of Fifth" and "After the Ordeal/The Cinema
> Show/Aisle of Plenty." "The Fountain of Salmacis." Just a few examples
> which come to mind.
>
> This isn't a subject you're equipped to discuss, Raja. I doubt you could
> even address specifics of more than a couple of Genesis songs, and even
> if you could, you characteristically would just lapse into your usual
> unthinking style of "LOL" who-can-shout-loudest debate.
Hey, I have Selling England By the Pound on my iPhone. Are you kidding
me? I have heard all their albums until Trick Of The Tail. I like
them. May be not as much as Yes, but I do like them. I don't think
they are in the league of Beatles, Beach Boys, Moody Blues, Bee Gees,
ABBA etc when it comes to writing melodies. Neither are Yes or
Zeppelin or Floyd or Sabbath or Purple, but those bands weren't
writing melodies.
If they were that good at melodies in the 70s, they would have sold
tons of records like Bee Gees or ABBA in the 70s. Their melodies got
better in the 80s and they sold a lot more.
Why do you think they sold a lot more in the 80s? Give me one good
reason. They had some excellent melodies. I find them too soft for my
taste, but I concede they made some excellent tunes in the 80s. This
is their best of collection. Wonder how many songs from the Gabriel
era are there? Just 2.
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> On Feb 20, 8:42 pm, TheWalrusWasDanny <dannyisthewal...@tesco.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > Peter Gabriel did not have a great range, Phil Collins was technically
> > > just okay. Mike Rutherford was not a vituoso by any means. Only Tony
> > > Banks can really lay a claim. There are many great guitarists out
> > > there who are technically more capable than Steve Hackett.-
>
> > You're talking bollocks Raja..utter bollocks...
>
> > Danny
>
> Mike Rutherford not a virtuoso? Have you ever heard his bass playing,
> especially on "The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway" album? The guy's
> amazing! Granted, he's not a great lead guitarist, but his bass
> playing matches up to anything Chris Squire has done. Although he's
> still a step short of The Great God Entwistle.
lol... yeah... I consider Squire better than Entwistle. As well as
John Paul Jones. So it is all matter of taste. Its not all about the
leads. I never said Rutherford is not a good bassist. Virtuoso, I
think not. Neither was Roger Glover from Deep Purple, but he was a
good bassist as well.
>
> Good thing you backtracked and gave Tony Banks the props he has due.
> This way, I can only call you an AMAZING asshole, which on my scale
> is a step short of being a COMPLETE asshole.
lol, I don't like Tony Banks though. I think he ruined many of the
songs by overplaying.
Tony Elka
<24be7a04-bc4f-43b7...@u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Am I Very Wrong, Window, In Hiding, Seven Stones, Time Table, and almost
everything else he did with them through The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway
you fucking idiot.
Tony
TheWalrusWasDanny
Dancing out with the Moonlit Knight.
Danny
TheWalrusWasDanny
> TheWalrusWasDanny <dannyisthewal...@tesco.net> wrote:
> > Bollocks.
>
> > Genesis were utterly melodic which is why I like them..the Englishness
> > helps...but the whole genius of Genesis was because of the
> > melodies...I despise un melodic stuff..call me an old romantic but if
> > you put on The Cinema Show I'll holler along with the rest of
> > them..."(sings) Romeo locks his basement flat and scurries up the
> > stair........"
>
> > Danny
>
:-)
Danny
Tony Elka
<0ac8dd17-8946-4594...@i39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If they were that good at melodies in the 70s, they would have sold
> tons of records like Bee Gees or ABBA in the 70s. Their melodies got
> better in the 80s and they sold a lot more.
I see that you're still working that "higher sales = better music"
formula.
Back in the day, "How Much is that Doggie in the Window" was a huge hit.
Doesn't mean it wasn't godawful music.
Tony
BlackMonk
"poisoned rose" <pros...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:prose1235-D59EA...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> > and
>> > acknowledge that your pet bands are stronger in some ways and weaker in
>> > others. You never did. And your absolute assertion that Genesis
>> > couldn't
>> > write hummable melodies is, um, dubious, given that the band had
>> > multiple radio hits very much due to those songs having "hummability."
>>
>> Not as a prog band in the 70s with Gabriel. When Phill Collins took
>> over and Hackett left as well, they simplified their sound and could
>> write simple melodies.
>
> of all the prog bands. Even before their pop phase.
>
> They have pieces so lovely that I get a lump in my throat. To name just
> one which I often return to, "Ripples" is simply GORGEOUS.
I wouldn't have heard that if you hadn't mentioned it, so thanks.
I don't think the vocal melody is anything exceptional, but the music is
very nice.
I'll admit I don't know much about prog, but I'd suggest Matching Mole as a
contender for best melodies. Oh Caroline is also gorgeous.
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 20, 7:36 pm, TheWalrusWasDanny <dannyisthewal...@tesco.net>
> > wrote:
> > > > I would highly disagree with Genesis being able to write melodies...
> > > > They were initially a Moody Blues wannabe and they sucked at that.
>
> > > Bollocks.
>
> > > Genesis were utterly melodic
> > Okay tell me some of the songs with Gabriel you think are melodic?
>
> Am I Very Wrong, Window, In Hiding, Seven Stones, Time Table, and almost
> everything else he did with them through The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway
> you fucking idiot.
>
> Tony
Good melodies sell a lot of records!!! Case in evidence - Beach Boys,
Beatles, ABBA, Bee Gees.
How is this melodic....
Genesis - The Fountain of Salmacis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NB9qU0Aqgw&feature=related
TheWalrusWasDanny
>
> - Show quoted text -
The FOS is really melodic..what are you on about Raja?
Danny
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > They have pieces so lovely that I get a lump in my throat. To name just
> > > one which I often return to, "Ripples" is simply GORGEOUS. The
> > > instrumental work on "Firth of Fifth" and "After the Ordeal/The Cinema
> > > Show/Aisle of Plenty." "The Fountain of Salmacis." Just a few examples
> > > which come to mind.
>
> > > This isn't a subject you're equipped to discuss, Raja. I doubt you could
> > > even address specifics of more than a couple of Genesis songs, and even
> > > if you could, you characteristically would just lapse into your usual
> > > unthinking style of "LOL" who-can-shout-loudest debate.
>
> > Hey, I have Selling England By the Pound on my iPhone. Are you kidding
> > me? I have heard all their albums until Trick Of The Tail. I like
> > them. May be not as much as Yes, but I do like them.
>
I thrash everyone. I have thrashed every band I have talked about...
Going For the One is not good, Tormato sucks. Animals is not good...
Presence is subpar... here you heard it.
>, and then when
> pressed for elaboration, you end up confessing that "Well, I like them.
> But just not that much." This just exposes how much of a troll you are.
Why am I a troll? Can't I be critical of bands and still be liking
some of their songs? I even like some songs by the Eagles... I have
never said anything positive about them...
>
> > If they were that good at melodies in the 70s, they would have sold
> > tons of records like Bee Gees or ABBA in the 70s.
>
> This was a really dumb thing to say, Raja. I guess you think all
> classical composers are terrible at melody too, right? They couldn't
> sell like ABBA either.
Lets stick to rock shall we?
>
> "Melody" and "Top 40 Melody" are not synonymous.
So ABBA already knew those songs will be top 40 before they became top
40? Beatles knew those songs will be top 40 before they became top
40... yeah right they were making those melodies with top 40 in
mind... righhhhht.
>
> > Why do you think they sold a lot more in the 80s?
>
> Because they shortened and simplified their songs, arrangements and
> lyrics.
Yes had complex and long songs. Why did they sell a lot more than
Genesis in the 70s when both bands were prog rock?
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
wrote:
I agree! Also Watcher Of the Skies! Carpet Crawlers, I Know What I
like
>
> Danny
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If they were that good at melodies in the 70s, they would have sold
> > tons of records like Bee Gees or ABBA in the 70s. Their melodies got
> > better in the 80s and they sold a lot more.
>
> I see that you're still working that "higher sales = better music"
> formula.
Nonsense. Britney Spears != better music, nor is Creed.
Tony Elka
<9392a6bf-1698-46e0...@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Good melodies sell a lot of records!!! Case in evidence - Beach Boys,
> Beatles, ABBA, Bee Gees.
Plenty of music sells based upon rhythm too. Do you think people buy
Eminem tunes for the melodies?
> How is this melodic....
> Genesis - The Fountain of Salmacis
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NB9qU0Aqgw&feature=related
Uh... I guess either you get it or you don't.
Why am I even responding to you again?
Tony
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
wrote:
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The FOS is really melodic..what are you on about Raja?
It has some nice keyboard passages in the middle. but is overall not a
melodic song like... say Nights in White Satin or Tuesday Afternoon.
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Good melodies sell a lot of records!!! Case in evidence - Beach Boys,
> > Beatles, ABBA, Bee Gees.
>
> Plenty of music sells based upon rhythm too. Do you think people buy
> Eminem tunes for the melodies?
Did I say only good melodies are the only thing which sell music?
Otherwise Zeppelin or Floyd wouldn't have sold crap. I said good
melodies always end up selling a lot.
Tony Elka
<089e9e01-0f17-4301...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It has some nice keyboard passages in the middle. but is overall not a
> melodic song like... say Nights in White Satin or Tuesday Afternoon.
Yeah, and Stravinksy's music was vastly different from Beethoven, who's
compositions were significantly different than those of J.S. Bach.
What's your point again, or do you have one?
Tony
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > It has some nice keyboard passages in the middle. but is overall not a
> > melodic song like... say Nights in White Satin or Tuesday Afternoon.
>
> Yeah, and Stravinksy's music was vastly different from Beethoven, who's
> compositions were significantly different than those of J.S. Bach.
Lets stick to the simpler rock music, shall we? We are talking melody
in the rock context.
TheWalrusWasDanny
Oh go on then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8zWvqmqAuQ
Danny
BlackMonk
> "BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>> > As I already said, I believe Genesis wrote the most beautiful melodies
>> > of all the prog bands. Even before their pop phase.
>> >
>> > They have pieces so lovely that I get a lump in my throat. To name just
>> > one which I often return to, "Ripples" is simply GORGEOUS.
>>
>> I wouldn't have heard that if you hadn't mentioned it, so thanks.
>>
>> I don't think the vocal melody is anything exceptional, but the music is
>> very nice.
>
> the whole instrumental section.
>
> I love to play that song on piano.
>
>> I'll admit I don't know much about prog, but I'd suggest Matching Mole as
>> a
>> contender for best melodies. Oh Caroline is also gorgeous.
>
> tracks are rather noodly for my tastes. I marginally like them, but....
>
> As far as pure "melody" goes, I'd rate solo Robert Wyatt much higher.
As I said, I don't know much about prog, so I'm probably confusing the two
in my mind. Bit of trivia for you: Robert Quine once said that Rock Bottom
was the saddest album he'd heard. I have most of it on mp3, but the album
itself is on my "someday" list, as is his last one.
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >, and then when
> > > pressed for elaboration, you end up confessing that "Well, I like them.
> > > But just not that much." This just exposes how much of a troll you are.
>
> > Why am I a troll?
>
I believe in sensationalism ;-) It always has more impact on people.
You get irritated easily anyway, so I can't help here... haha. I am
listening to Nursery Cryme on my ipod by the way. So I am not a
Genesis hater by any means. The Musical Box does have a great melodic
intro and later it rocks as well. The problem with Genesis was they
weren't consistently able to maintain such high level.
>
> > > > If they were that good at melodies in the 70s, they would have sold
> > > > tons of records like Bee Gees or ABBA in the 70s.
>
> > > This was a really dumb thing to say, Raja. I guess you think all
> > > classical composers are terrible at melody too, right? They couldn't
> > > sell like ABBA either.
>
> > Lets stick to rock shall we?
>
> WHY? WHY must we always stick to "rock" with you? WHY?
Because thats the point of the discussion. And I haven't heard enough
classical to debate that here.
>
> > Yes had complex and long songs. Why did they sell a lot more than
> > Genesis in the 70s when both bands were prog rock?
>
> Better question: Why are you incapable of discussing more than 12-15
> different bands?
>
> But why did Yes sell more? Not because of melody. Because they "rocked"
> in a way which meshed more easily with mainstream FM radio.
I think bands like Yes and Zeppelin changed the mainstream FM radio
trend. They weren't following any trends out there. So I have to
disagree. If Genesis were that good, they would have moved the
mainstream to their style. They were as experimental as Yes or
Zeppelin, just not as good in creating memorable songs ;-)
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Okay tell me some of the songs with Gabriel you think are melodic?
>
> > > Dancing out with the Moonlit Knight.
>
> > I agree! Also Watcher Of the Skies! Carpet Crawlers, I Know What I
> > like
>
>
> First you say Genesis weren't melodic during the Gabriel era just to
> cause arguments, now you reverse yourself.
in a few songs yes, but not for the most part.
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > good melodies always end up selling a lot
>
people are sucker for well arranged melodic music. you will find the
best arranged and most melodic songs of bands like Supertramp,
Electric Light Orchestra and 10cc as good evidence. there is a reason
they are called pop melodies... because they are FUCKING popular....
ever wonder why Beatles sold a billion records. They are the masters
of melodies. Genesis weren't at least in the 70s... a few melodic song
here and there, don't it.
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Why am I a troll?
>
> > > Because you falsely exaggerate your negativity to irritate people.
>
> > I believe in sensationalism ;-) It always has more impact on people.
> > You get irritated easily anyway, so I can't help here... haha. I am
> > listening to Nursery Cryme on my ipod by the way. So I am not a
> > Genesis hater by any means.
>
> Because that's what trolls do.
No trolls lie. I don't. I don't falsely exaggerate. I just exaggerate,
there is always some truth in it.
>
> > > > Lets stick to rock shall we?
>
> > > WHY? WHY must we always stick to "rock" with you? WHY?
>
> > Because thats the point of the discussion.
>
> WHY? Always with the silly frittering over genre restrictions.
So you wanna compare classical music written 400 years with rock music
written 40 years ago?
>
> > > > Yes had complex and long songs. Why did they sell a lot more than
> > > > Genesis in the 70s when both bands were prog rock?
>
> > > Better question: Why are you incapable of discussing more than 12-15
> > > different bands?
>
> > > But why did Yes sell more? Not because of melody. Because they "rocked"
> > > in a way which meshed more easily with mainstream FM radio.
>
> > I think bands like Yes and Zeppelin changed the mainstream FM radio
> > trend. They weren't following any trends out there. So I have to
> > disagree. If Genesis were that good, they would have moved the
> > mainstream to their style. They were as experimental as Yes or
> > Zeppelin, just not as good in creating memorable songs ;-)
>
> You're just fumbling for excuses again.
I gave a good explanation and now you are calling it an excuse. Thats
trolling.
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > good melodies always end up selling a lot
>
> > > BOY, are you naive.
>
> > people are sucker for well arranged melodic music.
>
>
> Boy, are you naive.
>
> > you will find the
> > best arranged and most melodic songs of bands like Supertramp,
> > Electric Light Orchestra and 10cc as good evidence.
>
>
Thats my favorite time period. Why are still discussing Beatles? It is
2010 already.
> > Genesis weren't at least in the 70s... a few melodic song
> > here and there, don't it.
>
> I don't even care to hear what your half-assed excuse would be, but
> perhaps you should ask yourself why Genesis sold so much better than
> almost any other prog band EXCEPT Yes.
ELP, Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd and daresay Queen sold a lot more in the
early and mid 70s than Genesis did in the same time period. Most of
Genesis sales numbers are from the 80s.
bubba
>
> - Show quoted text -
RAJA IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE FOR YOUR UNFORTUNATE UGLINESS AND TINY
PENIS, YOU PICK SAFE FIGHTS WITH PEOPLE WHO CANNOT TOUCH YOU ON
USENET- PATHETIC!!
bubba
wrote:
RAJA IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE FOR YOUR UNFORTUNATE UGLINESS AND TINY
bubba
wrote:
RAJA IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE FOR YOUR UNFORTUNATE UGLINESS AND TINY
bubba
RAJA IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE FOR YOUR UNFORTUNATE UGLINESS AND TINY
bubba
wrote:
> On Feb 20, 8:45 pm, Tony Elka <shadowl...@shadowlane.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <089e9e01-0f17-4301-85c0-a3cd59403...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > It has some nice keyboard passages in the middle. but is overall not a
> > > melodic song like... say Nights in White Satin or Tuesday Afternoon.
>
> > Yeah, and Stravinksy's music was vastly different from Beethoven, who's
> > compositions were significantly different than those of J.S. Bach.
>
> Lets stick to the simpler rock music, shall we? We are talking melody
> in the rock context.
>
>
>
>
>
> > What's your point again, or do you have one?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
RAJA IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE FOR YOUR UNFORTUNATE UGLINESS AND TINY
RichL
<a bunch of crap that's irrelevant to Wright's instrumental prowess, or lack
thereof>
Typical fanboi response: dodge the issue.
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I believe in sensationalism ;-) It always has more impact on people.
> > > > You get irritated easily anyway, so I can't help here... haha. I am
> > > > listening to Nursery Cryme on my ipod by the way. So I am not a
> > > > Genesis hater by any means.
>
> > > Right. But you falsely exaggerate your misgivings about them for effect.
> > > Because that's what trolls do.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Better question: Why are you incapable of discussing more than 12-15
> > > > > different bands?
>
> > > > > But why did Yes sell more? Not because of melody. Because they "rocked"
> > > > > in a way which meshed more easily with mainstream FM radio.
>
> > > > I think bands like Yes and Zeppelin changed the mainstream FM radio
> > > > trend. They weren't following any trends out there. So I have to
> > > > disagree. If Genesis were that good, they would have moved the
> > > > mainstream to their style. They were as experimental as Yes or
> > > > Zeppelin, just not as good in creating memorable songs ;-)
>
> > > You're just fumbling for excuses again.
>
> > I gave a good explanation and now you are calling it an excuse. Thats
> > trolling.
>
> any trends" -- these are empty, vague, unquantifiable claims you're
> pulling out of the air to help your case.
They are not vague. Nothing really sounded like Led Zeppelin I when it
came out. Jeff Beck was pissed off with it, because he felt Led
Zeppelin I beat his idea to the punch. The Yes Album and Fragile and
Close to the Edge were a trend setters as well. It inspired bands like
Jethro Tull to go prog and record stuff like Thick As A Brick.
Either you are really tone deaf or in blatant denial if you think Led
Zeppelin I and The Yes Album didn't start a trend.
RichL
> Yeah his solo album after he was in deep cocaine addition
'addiction'
> and was suffering a writers block.
'suffering from writer's block'
> He wasn't the same guy after Wish You Were Here and both
> Gilmour and Waters took over the reigns.
'reins'
> His contributions to songwriting in Animals and The Wall is minimal
> to say the least.
'are'
> The guy was fired from the band for being a slob FFS! And
> you listen to a lazy album he put out when he was past it and jump
> into conclusion?
'jump to a conclusion' or 'jump to conclusions'
You can always tell when Raja's fanboi juices are flowing. He starts
writing like a ten-year-old.
BlackMonk
"Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl" <zepf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4261c61e-4c67-4473...@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Then explain all the contemporary reviews of Led Zeppelin 1 that said they
sounded like the Jeff Beck Group.
For example:
http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ledzeppelin/albums/album/103294/review/18835333/led_zeppelin_i
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > good melodies always end up selling a lot
>
> > > > > BOY, are you naive.
>
> > > > people are sucker for well arranged melodic music.
>
> > > Only if they HEAR it.
>
> > > Boy, are you naive.
>
>
> > > > you will find the
> > > > best arranged and most melodic songs of bands like Supertramp,
> > > > Electric Light Orchestra and 10cc as good evidence.
>
> > > God. Just LEAVE THE '70S ALREADY! It is the year TWO-THOUSAND AND TEN.
>
> > Thats my favorite time period.
>
> by so rarely straying from the same micro-spectrum of "bands."
>
> > > > Genesis weren't at least in the 70s... a few melodic song
> > > > here and there, don't it.
>
> > > I don't even care to hear what your half-assed excuse would be, but
> > > perhaps you should ask yourself why Genesis sold so much better than
> > > almost any other prog band EXCEPT Yes.
>
> > ELP, Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd and daresay Queen sold a lot more in the
> > early and mid 70s than Genesis did in the same time period. Most of
> > Genesis sales numbers are from the 80s.
>
> would dispute Pink Floyd.
>
> Now AGAIN, you blithering dolt....
>
> You contend that THREE prog bands beyond Yes also sold better than
> Genesis. Explain how this defies my statement that "Genesis sold so much
> better than almost any other prog band except Yes." How many prog bands
> do you think there were in the '70s? Six? Seven?
Most of the 70s biggest sellers were quite progressive anyway, even
though prognerds might disagree. I see progressiveness in The Who,
Led Zeppelin, Queen, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, ELP,
Jethro Tull, Rush and they all sold more. You never said strict prog
band. There were hardly many mainstream strict prog bands out there.
BlackMonk
"RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47SdnduRzMC9NR3W...@supernews.com...
As long as we're on the subject, someone should point out that "virtuoso" is
a noun, not an adjective.
RichL
> wrote:
>>> Not as a prog band in the 70s with Gabriel. When Phill Collins took
>>> over and Hackett left as well, they simplified their sound and could
>>> write simple melodies.-
>>
>> "And then there were 3" has fab and complex melodies on it...what are
>> you talking about Raja?
>
> What about Duke, Abacus.
'Abacus'? <G>
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
Richard Wright himself admitted he was suffering from a writers block
in the late 70s, dummy. Read some of his interviews. He was validly
kicked out of the band, he wasn't contributing. Although it was done
in a brutal way.
Tony Elka
<9ba87adc-9169-40c1...@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most of the 70s biggest sellers were quite progressive anyway, even
> though prognerds might disagree. I see progressiveness in The Who,
> Led Zeppelin, Queen, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, ELP,
> Jethro Tull, Rush and they all sold more. You never said strict prog
> band. There were hardly many mainstream strict prog bands out there.
Never heard of the Bee Gees, huh? Do you have any idea how big disco
was back then?
Or pop music from bands and artists such as Diana Ross, The Captain &
Tennille, The Spinners, Barry Manilow, The Carpenters, Ohio Players,
Elton John, America, Olivia Newton-John, John Denver, The Hues
Corporation, Barbara Streisand, TSOP, Maureen McGovern, Jim Croce,
Roberta Flack, Stevie Wonder, Gladys Knight & The Pips, Steve Miller,
Bachman-Turner Overdrive, Harry Chapin, Neil Sedaka, Linda Ronstadt,
LaBelle, Glen Campbell, Paul Simon, WIld Cherry, Rose Royce, Leo Sayer,
KC and the Sunshine Band, Fleetwood Mac, Thelma Houston, A Taste of
Honey, even Debby Boone had a monster hit in the 1970's for fuck's sake.
Most prog acts would have killed to have sold as many records as those
artists.
Come to think of it, there was some incredibly dreadful music in the
1970's.
Tony
DGDevin
"Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl" <zepf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:910e3343-7acd-4a14...@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> lol... yeah... I consider Squire better than Entwistle. As well as
> John Paul Jones. So it is all matter of taste.
No, "Raja," it isn't about taste, because you have none beyond your blind
worship of a handful of bands (and the misunderstood bits and pieces of
criticism you steal from the websites you haunt). You don't play bass, you
don't understand what Entwistle (and a few others) did with the instrument
in the mid-60s that revolutionized how it was played and the role it had in
popular music. Your view is that the members of those few bands that give
you a tiny erection are by definition the best in the world and everybody
else must be inferior to them because they don't play in your fave bands, it
is classic fanboi behavior.
So here's your assignment for next week:
1) Listen to complete albums by five artists you have never heard before.
2) Take those Led Zep and Pink Floyd posters off your living room wall.
3) Talk to a woman you don't work with.
Completing all three will be a tiny step towards becoming a man instead of a
giant virgin fanboi musical tourist.
Nil
in rec.music.beatles:
> Genesis were utterly melodic which is why I like them..the
> Englishness helps...but the whole genius of Genesis was because of
> the melodies...I despise un melodic stuff..call me an old romantic
> but if you put on The Cinema Show I'll holler along with the rest
> of them..."(sings) Romeo locks his basement flat and scurries up
> the stair........"
How about the beginning of Supper's Ready, and especially the reprise
at the end? There's a little key change at the line, "Now I'm back
again, and babe it's gonna work out fine" - that melody just tears my
heart out.
John Cocktolstoy
Tony Elka
Nil <redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
> How about the beginning of Supper's Ready, and especially the reprise
> at the end? There's a little key change at the line, "Now I'm back
> again, and babe it's gonna work out fine" - that melody just tears my
> heart out.
And so it should.
Tony
bubba
wrote:
bubba
bubba
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Most of the 70s biggest sellers were quite progressive anyway, even
> > though prognerds might disagree. I see progressiveness in The Who,
> > Led Zeppelin, Queen, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, ELP,
> > Jethro Tull, Rush and they all sold more. You never said strict prog
> > band. There were hardly many mainstream strict prog bands out there.
>
> Never heard of the Bee Gees, huh? Do you have any idea how big disco
> was back then?
>
> Or pop music
in the 70s who sold a lot. Do I have to explicitly mention
everything?
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You're just fumbling for excuses. "Yes and Zeppelin weren't following
> > > any trends" -- these are empty, vague, unquantifiable claims you're
> > > pulling out of the air to help your case.
>
> > They are not vague. Nothing really sounded like Led Zeppelin I when it
> > came out. Jeff Beck was pissed off with it, because he felt Led
> > Zeppelin I beat his idea to the punch.
>
I was saying Truth came later. What I said is Jeff Beck was pissed
that Jimmy took the sound on Truth and magnified it and made it
better.
In another interview, also given by Page in 1977, he elaborated:
[Beck] had the same sort of taste in music as I did. That's why you'll
find on the early LPs we both did a song like "You Shook Me." It was
the type of thing we'd both played in bands. Someone told me he'd
already recorded it after we'd already put it down on the first
Zeppelin album. I thought, "Oh dear, it's going to be identical," but
it was nothing like it, fortunately. I just had no idea he'd done it.
It was on Truth but I first heard it when I was in Miami after we'd
recorded our version. It's a classic example of coming from the same
area musically, of having a similar taste.[2]
For his part, Beck has said that he first heard that Page had recorded
the same song was when Page himself played it to him:
He said, "Listen to this. Listen to Bonzo, this guy called John Bonham
that I've got." And so I said I would, and my heart just sank when I
heard "You Shook Me". I looked at him and said "Jim, what?" and the
tears were coming out with anger. I thought "This is a piss-take, it's
got to be." I mean, there's Truth still spinning on everybody's
turntable, and this turkey's come out with another version. Oh boy ...
then I realised it was serious, and he did have this heavyweight
drummer, and I thought "Here we go again" - pipped at the post kind of
thing.[4]
Tony Elka
<338af35e-68fc-412c...@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> yeah, not talking about pop music here. I was talking about rock bands
> in the 70s who sold a lot. Do I have to explicitly mention
> everything?
You could try not mentioning anything for a change.
Tony
progea
bubba
wrote:
YOU HAVE A TINY PENIS, NO FRIENDS AND GIRLS HATE YOU
Jales
> Of all the popular and highly rate prog bands Jethro Tull and Genesis
> are the least virtuosos. Yes, Pink Floyd, ELP, Rush, King Crimson and
> even marginally prog bands like The Who, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath,
> Led Zeppelin are all technically much stronger than these 2.
If you really think Pink Floyd are more virtuoso than Jethro Tull and
Genesis, you either don't know what "virtuoso" means or have some
problem with your ears.. Pink Floyd are by far the least virtuoso of
all the bands you mention. They are average players, except maybe for
Gilmour, whom I wouldn't really call virtuoso, but an expresive guitar
player...
Pink Floyd songs are quite simple. They never got any "difficult" than
side two of Abbey Road or Tommy. Wright could never play something
like the intro to Locomotive Breath. Waters could never play the bass
solo on Bouree. Mason could never play like Collins. His most
difficult part must be the 7/4 beat on Money. Have you heard Supper's
Ready or Thick As A Brick? When did Pinf Floyd write stuff like that?
Where is the virtuosity on Atom Heart Mother or Animals? Don't you
realize the longer Floyd songs like Shine On You Crazy Diamond are
just different fragments put together side by side?
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> On 20 feb, 18:17, Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Of all the popular and highly rate prog bands Jethro Tull and Genesis
> > are the least virtuosos. Yes, Pink Floyd, ELP, Rush, King Crimson and
> > even marginally prog bands like The Who, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath,
> > Led Zeppelin are all technically much stronger than these 2.
>
> If you really think Pink Floyd are more virtuoso than Jethro Tull and
> Genesis, you either don't know what "virtuoso" means or have some
> problem with your ears.. Pink Floyd are by far the least virtuoso of
> all the bands you mention. They are average players, except maybe for
> Gilmour, whom I wouldn't really call virtuoso, but an expresive guitar
> player...
I think everyone in Pink Floyd slow solos. That does make them less of
virtuosos. They made slow because their music was slow and moody and
atmospheric. In Piper they do play some fast stuff, but they didn't
keep the same sound for long with the departure of Barrett.
I think Waters and Wright were more talented than Gilmour by the way.
Gilmour was way more calculated than the other two.
Check this out.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iA7wdO00VI
>
> Pink Floyd songs are quite simple.
Oh yeah, did your band ever try Interstellar Overdrive and Astronomy
Domine or Pow R Toch H. How about Lucifer Sam? How about the music on
Money or Any Colour You like? How about Echoes? How about Atom Heart
Mother? How is all that easy?
> They never got any "difficult" than
> side two of Abbey Road or Tommy. Wright could never play something
> like the intro to Locomotive Breath. Waters could never play the bass
> solo on Bouree. Mason could never play like Collins. His most
> difficult part must be the 7/4 beat on Money. Have you heard Supper's
> Ready or Thick As A Brick? When did Pinf Floyd write stuff like that?
> Where is the virtuosity on Atom Heart Mother or Animals? Don't you
> realize the longer Floyd songs like Shine On You Crazy Diamond are
> just different fragments put together side by side?
They weren't musically that good after TDSOTM. I always felt they sold
out after seeing the money come in with The Dark Side Of The Moon.
They might have become better songwriters... but musically nothing was
innovative after Dark Side.
Tony Elka
<4e1f6adc-e6c0-4642...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think everyone in Pink Floyd slow solos. That does make them less of
> virtuosos. They made slow because their music was slow and moody and
> atmospheric. In Piper they do play some fast stuff, but they didn't
> keep the same sound for long with the departure of Barrett.
vir�tu�o�so [vur-choo-oh-soh]
�noun
1. a person who has special knowledge or skill in a field.
2. a person who excels in musical technique or execution.
3. a person who has a cultivated appreciation of artistic excellence, as
a connoisseur or collector of objects of art, antiques,etc.
4. Obsolete. a person who has special interest or knowledge in the arts
and sciences; scientist; scholar.
�adjective
5. Also, vir�tu�os�ic ?[vur-choo-os-ik] Show IPA. of, pertaining to, or
characteristic of a virtuoso: a virtuoso performance.
Origin:
1610�20; < It: versed, skilled < LL virtuosus virtuous
Jales
> On Feb 21, 9:38 am, Jales <jales...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 20 feb, 18:17, Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Of all the popular and highly rate prog bands Jethro Tull and Genesis
> > > are the least virtuosos. Yes, Pink Floyd, ELP, Rush, King Crimson and
> > > even marginally prog bands like The Who, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath,
> > > Led Zeppelin are all technically much stronger than these 2.
>
> > If you really think Pink Floyd are more virtuoso than Jethro Tull and
> > Genesis, you either don't know what "virtuoso" means or have some
> > problem with your ears.. Pink Floyd are by far the least virtuoso of
> > all the bands you mention. They are average players, except maybe for
> > Gilmour, whom I wouldn't really call virtuoso, but an expresive guitar
> > player...
>
> I think everyone in Pink Floyd slow solos. That does make them less of
> virtuosos. They made slow because their music was slow and moody and
> atmospheric. In Piper they do play some fast stuff, but they didn't
> keep the same sound for long with the departure of Barrett.
>
I was right: you don't know what "virtuoso" means. Here's a definition
from Wikipedia:
In Music in the Western World by Piero Weiss and Richard Taruskin, we
find the following definition of virtuoso: "...a virtuoso was,
originally, a highly accomplished musician, but by the nineteenth
century the term had become restricted to performers, both vocal and
instrumental, whose technical accomplishments were so pronounced as to
dazzle the public."
The defining element of virtuosity is the performance ability of the
musician in question, who is capable of displaying feats of skill well
above the average performer. Musicians focused on virtuosity are
commonly[vague] criticized for overlooking substance and emotion in
favor of raw technical prowess. Despite the mechanical aspects of
virtuosity, many virtuosi successfully avoid such labels, focusing
simultaneously on other musical aspects while writing and performing
music.
By going with your concept of "virtuoso" we shall conclude, for
example, George Harrison is a virtuoso...
>
>
> > Pink Floyd songs are quite simple.
>
> Oh yeah, did your band ever try Interstellar Overdrive and Astronomy
> Domine or Pow R Toch H. How about Lucifer Sam? How about the music on
> Money or Any Colour You like? How about Echoes? How about Atom Heart
> Mother? How is all that easy?
The songs on Pet Sounds are by far more complex than the ones you
mention. I won't even bother to name examples from Genesis or Jethro
Tull
Mike Dickson
> They are not vague. Nothing really sounded like Led Zeppelin I when it
> came out.
Apart from Robert Johnson. And Willie Dixon. And everyone else they
ripped off.
> The Yes Album and Fragile and
> Close to the Edge were a trend setters as well. It inspired bands like
> Jethro Tull to go prog and record stuff like Thick As A Brick.
That must have been a great band meeting.
'We have to GO PROG'
'Ian. Sit down. Seriously.'
--
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh
Free Music Project: http://www.mikedickson.org.uk/
Or http://www.last.fm/music/Mike+Dickson
Or http://soundcloud.com/mikedickson
Or http://www.planetmellotron.com/revd4.htm#mikedickson
Or http://www.myspace.com/mellotronworks
bubba
wrote:
> On Feb 21, 9:38 am, Jales <jales...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 20 feb, 18:17, Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Of all the popular and highly rate prog bands Jethro Tull and Genesis
> > > are the least virtuosos. Yes, Pink Floyd, ELP, Rush, King Crimson and
> > > even marginally prog bands like The Who, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath,
> > > Led Zeppelin are all technically much stronger than these 2.
>
> > If you really think Pink Floyd are more virtuoso than Jethro Tull and
> > Genesis, you either don't know what "virtuoso" means or have some
> > problem with your ears.. Pink Floyd are by far the least virtuoso of
> > all the bands you mention. They are average players, except maybe for
> > Gilmour, whom I wouldn't really call virtuoso, but an expresive guitar
> > player...
>
> I think everyone in Pink Floyd slow solos. That does make them less of
> virtuosos. They made slow because their music was slow and moody and
> atmospheric. In Piper they do play some fast stuff, but they didn't
> keep the same sound for long with the departure of Barrett.
>
> I think Waters and Wright were more talented than Gilmour by the way.
> Gilmour was way more calculated than the other two.
>
>
>
>
> > Pink Floyd songs are quite simple.
>
> Oh yeah, did your band ever try Interstellar Overdrive and Astronomy
> Domine or Pow R Toch H. How about Lucifer Sam? How about the music on
> Money or Any Colour You like? How about Echoes? How about Atom Heart
> Mother? How is all that easy?
>
> > They never got any "difficult" than
> > side two of Abbey Road or Tommy. Wright could never play something
> > like the intro to Locomotive Breath. Waters could never play the bass
> > solo on Bouree. Mason could never play like Collins. His most
> > difficult part must be the 7/4 beat on Money. Have you heard Supper's
> > Ready or Thick As A Brick? When did Pinf Floyd write stuff like that?
> > Where is the virtuosity on Atom Heart Mother or Animals? Don't you
> > realize the longer Floyd songs like Shine On You Crazy Diamond are
> > just different fragments put together side by side?
>
> They weren't musically that good after TDSOTM. I always felt they sold
> out after seeing the money come in with The Dark Side Of The Moon.
> They might have become better songwriters... but musically nothing was
> innovative after Dark Side.
RAJA HAS A TINY PENIS AND NO FRIENDS
richforman
wrote:
> On Feb 20, 8:28 pm, poisoned rose <prose1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I thrash everyone. I have thrashed every band I have talked about...
> Going For the One is not good
Yes it is.
richforman
JohnB
Agreed. One of my favourite Yes albums containing two of my favourite
Yes tracks.
And while I'm here, IMHO Ian Anderson is a far superior singer to Jon
Anderson and a more accomplished songwriter than any of Zep. Also, the
one of the reasons I liked Genesis in the first place was the quality
of their melodies (though admittedly I started late as a fan with
SEBTP). Both bands are better than Zep to my ears, especially
technically, and both bands are better than Yes in terms of heart and
soul. All my opinion, of course, but my opinion is what matters most
to me, not those of critics.
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> On 22 Feb, 15:13, richforman <rforma...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 20, 9:40 pm, Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 20, 8:28 pm, poisoned rose <prose1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > I thrash everyone. I have thrashed every band I have talked about...
> > > Going For the One is not good
>
> > Yes it is.
>
> > richforman
>
> Agreed. One of my favourite Yes albums containing two of my favourite
> Yes tracks.
>
> And while I'm here, IMHO Ian Anderson is a far superior singer to Jon
> Anderson and a more accomplished songwriter than any of Zep.
My ex-boss who is a big r&b fan (from 50s to current) and jazz fan,
was never into rock music. He is an African American and thought rock
was just too loud. I made him listen to a few Led Zeppelin, Yes and
Pink Floyd songs. He was very impressed with Robert Plant and Jon
Anderson's voice. He said they were great singer. This is a guy who
knows about singing... especially soul singers. He used to say most
rock singers can't sing. But he found Plant and Jon Anderson to be
great singer.
I being a rock fan and having heard many rock singers don't feel Ian
Anderson has a good voice. Many people are turned off from Tull's
music because of his voice. I do not hate his voice to not like their
music. They made several great songs and I would definitely recommend
them. But I am shocked to hear anyone say Ian Anderson is a better
singer than Jon Anderon or Robert Plant. Your assertion seems
ridiculous to me, but it might be just your taste. So no comments.
Tony Elka
<3e653772-f3a3-4bd1...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My ex-boss who is a big r&b fan (from 50s to current) and jazz fan,
> was never into rock music. He is an African American and thought rock
> was just too loud. I made him listen to a few Led Zeppelin, Yes and
> Pink Floyd songs.
It always comes back to those three bands with you. Always. You're
like a train on a track. You probably can't help it.
> I being a rock fan and having heard many rock singers don't feel Ian
> Anderson has a good voice. Many people are turned off from Tull's
> music because of his voice. I do not hate his voice to not like their
> music. They made several great songs and I would definitely recommend
> them. But I am shocked to hear anyone say Ian Anderson is a better
> singer than Jon Anderon or Robert Plant. Your assertion seems
> ridiculous to me, but it might be just your taste. So no comments.
I've known people that didn't listen to YES because they couldn't stand
Jon Anderson's voice.
Tony
Ray
wrote:
> On Feb 20, 6:39 pm, Ray <6sickstri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 4:17 pm, Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Of all the popular and highly rate prog bands Jethro Tull and Genesis
> > > are the least virtuosos. Yes, Pink Floyd, ELP, Rush, King Crimson and
> > > even marginally prog bands like The Who, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath,
> > > Led Zeppelin are all technically much stronger than these 2.
>
> > > - Does that fact that Genesis and Jethro Tull are more arty (more
> > > meaningful and socially relevant lyrics) than the rest and less wanky
> > > than the rest make you like Genesis and Jethro Tull better?
>
> > > My question to PROG fans
> > > - Does that fact that Genesis and Jethro Tull are more arty (more
> > > meaningful and socially relevant lyrics) than the rest and less wanky
> > > than the rest make you like Genesis and Jethro Tull lesser?
>
> > You are a moron. Steve Hackett was one of the most technically capable
> > guitarists in the prog rock movement.
>
> Peter Gabriel did not have a great range, Phil Collins was technically
> just okay. Mike Rutherford was not a vituoso by any means. Only Tony
> Banks can really lay a claim. There are many great guitarists out
> there who are technically more capable than Steve Hackett.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gee, I never realized that. Now you’ll have to explain you methodology
to me.
Phil Collins, was he “adequate” only on the Genesis records? Does that
apply to his work with Brand X? You have listened to the Brand X
records right? What about the drumming on Seconds Out? Is that ‘merely
adequate’? Just wondering.
And I’m VERY interested in your criteria for evaluating the inferior
guitar playing of Steve Hackett. I’m wondering, which do you think is
more difficult: Playing lots of notes really fast or playing
microtonal oblique bends in time and in tune over an irrational meter?
Can you even tap your foot in time with the guitar parts in “Supper’s
Ready?” Try it, bet you can’t (not that you would admit it).
Do you know that the reason “Money” changes from 5/4 time to 4/4 time
for the guitar solo? Did you even know that it does that?
Have you ever listened to “Foxtrot”, “Nursery Crime” or “Lamb Lies
Down On Broadway”? All the way through? Can you tell the guitar parts
from the synths and keyboards in those records? Can you tell me what’s
significant about what Hackett does with the intro to “Return of the
Giant Hogweed”?
How long have you been playing guitar and drums? Long enough to
evaluate what is and is not difficult to play?
And what exactly do you mean by “Peter Gabriel did not have a great
range” … what is his range? Do you even know?
You know fuckall about music, stick to tennis.
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My ex-boss who is a big r&b fan (from 50s to current) and jazz fan,
> > was never into rock music. He is an African American and thought rock
> > was just too loud. I made him listen to a few Led Zeppelin, Yes and
> > Pink Floyd songs.
>
> It always comes back to those three bands with you. Always. You're
> like a train on a track. You probably can't help it.
Why would I not introduce the bands I regard the highest to my boss,
if he is asking me for rock recommendations? Do you want me to
introduce Motley Crue, Poison and Air Supply instead?
>
> > I being a rock fan and having heard many rock singers don't feel Ian
> > Anderson has a good voice. Many people are turned off from Tull's
> > music because of his voice. I do not hate his voice to not like their
> > music. They made several great songs and I would definitely recommend
> > them. But I am shocked to hear anyone say Ian Anderson is a better
> > singer than Jon Anderon or Robert Plant. Your assertion seems
> > ridiculous to me, but it might be just your taste. So no comments.
>
> I've known people that didn't listen to YES because they couldn't stand
> Jon Anderson's voice.
They are homophobic. He has a slightly feminne voice. If it was girl,
they would have listened.
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
See this is the problems with nerds. They get too technical and forget
the real essence of music. For me it is about the feel and beauty of
music. Not about playing it in 7/4 or 5/4.
> for the guitar solo? Did you even know that it does that?
> Have you ever listened to “Foxtrot”, “Nursery Crime” or “Lamb Lies
> Down On Broadway”?
Foxtrot, Yes. The Lamb Lies Down... long back... but I cannot sit
through it... has a few good songs I must admit. I just listened to
Nursery Cryme all the way yesterday... didnt think much of it except
the opening track. I have transferred it from my ipod to iphone. I
will listen to it again and see if I missed something yesterday. Don't
have too much hopes from the album... seems like immature Genesis to
me. The core three are Foxtrot, SEBTP and TLLDOB
> All the way through? Can you tell the guitar parts
> from the synths and keyboards in those records? Can you tell me what’s
> significant about what Hackett does with the intro to “Return of the
> Giant Hogweed”?
> How long have you been playing guitar and drums? Long enough to
> evaluate what is and is not difficult to play?
> And what exactly do you mean by “Peter Gabriel did not have a great
> range” … what is his range? Do you even know?
>
> You know fuckall about music, stick to tennis.- Hide quoted text -
Steffi Ivan Graf Lendl
> range” … what is his range? Do you even know?
He can neither go extremely high or extremely low... Freddie Mercury
could, King Diamond could, Robert Plant could, Jon Anderson could.
That doesnt mean he is a bad singer. You need not have a wide range to
be a good singer. I just feel he lacks the power that most of his
peers had. His voice is pleasant though. Not like say Bob Dylan or
Neil Young or Ian Anderson.
Jeff
wrote:
Why does it make any difference who is the better singer?
Just listen to who you like.