90's and 00's music vs Older music
NigHTs1000
our beloved 70's bands that influenced them certainly...what are peoples'
opinions here on newer music with "progressive" overtones(not calling anything
progressive rock) vs. the older "classic" stuff?
Richard Barnes
All the bands you mention are innovative, interesting and skilled. So they
stack up as far as I can see to the 70s bands we love on here. As to
whether we "like" them better, that's another thing entirely.
--
Richard Barnes
"NigHTs1000" <night...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030523011524...@mb-m17.aol.com...
J.B.L.
>opinions here on newer music with "progressive" overtones(not calling
>anything
>progressive rock) vs. the older "classic" stuff?
There's some good stuff being made by various artists right now. (
Unfortunately for me, Sigur Ros struck me as new age trickle and I've not
pursued Radiohead or Spiritualized after hearing a couple of tracks from their
albums "OK Computer" and "Something about Floating in Space" (can't remember!).
And I really wanted to like these guys, too. )
Still, modern bands I like as well as the Great Old Ones of my faroff youth
would include Alamaailman Vasarat, Andromeda, Krakatoa, Spastic Ink,
Apocalyptica...aah, too many to list.
np: Andromeda - II=I Coming up: M.Nyman
"The tongue is located mere inches from the brain, yet it behaves as if it were
in another county."
Bradley Evans
Radiohead don't do much for me, but I certainly prefer Spiritualized and
Sigur Ros to anything from such 70s dinosaurs as Genesis, Tull, or Pink
Floyd, to name three.
But suggesting those bands wre influenced by 70s prog (beyond perhaps
the likes of Brian Eno and a few krautrock bands) is pretty far-fetched
anyway.
-Brad
Dave@ECM-FAN
What makes them better? Wrong term, as that is completely subjective. I
like many new bands, as well as my old "beloved" bands, but for different
reasons, each and every one.
Dave
Mike Borella
Well, if nothing else there seems to be more albums being released these
days. The one thing that I don't care for is when modern bands try to sound
like 70's bands. Having said that, most of my top 50 or so albums would be
from 1990 on, and most of my pre-1990 favorites tend to be more jazzier than
progressive.
*shrug*
--
Mike Borella
mike at borella dot net
http://www.borella.net
ScippyLisp
>.what are peoples'
>> opinions here on newer music with "progressive" overtones(not calling
>anything
>> progressive rock) vs. the older "classic" stuff?
I find that I mostly have a love for the "classic" prog over the newer
material. However, I have found newer material that I'm very fond of, but the
ratio is like 10-70s albums for every 1-90s.
Interesting though, with jazz I've discovered an incredible amount of great
avant or free jazz being released these days, and I like some of the modern
stuff equally or better than the material 30-40 years ago.
And if I might make a relatively bold statement, it seems the prog resurgence
as we've come to know it is dying out a bit. Even many of the bands that helped
surge the 90s (Echolyn, SB, FK, Anglagard, some others) are still around, but
it seems a lot of other bands are beating a dead horse.
That said, I did find 30+ prog albums worth buying from last year. But I think
it's going to be this changing face, bands like Sigur Ros, Krakatoa,
Interference Sardines, Radiohead, GYBE, that is the best hope for the next
decade.
Cozy
greblracr
is." Some of the newer bands may be better musicians, and play better
instruments, and even write better tunes -- but that doesn't mean I'm going to
prefer them over a band I've known for thirty years.
Mark Rae
news:FKoza.243267$w7k.2...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> What makes them better? Wrong term, as that is completely subjective.
I couldn't agree more. I've always felt that there are only two types of
music - music you like and music you don't like, which will be different for
everyone. I've never understood how anyone can say that one track / album /
band is better or worse than another any more than, say, Sunflowers is
better or worse than Mona Lisa.
All you can do is try to describe why you like some music more than other
music. You might like Anarchy in the UK more than Supper's Ready, or Karn
Evil 9 more than Freebird, but that doesn't mean that one is better or worse
than the other...
Richard Barnes
are badly composed or produced compared to others and the bands themselves
will always tell you they thought they made mistakes on certain albums. I
think you can fairly say for instance that Union is "worse" than Close to
the Edge in Yes' case.
--
Richard Barnes
"Mark Rae" <ma...@markrae.co.uk> wrote in message
news:W3tza.731$sE6.5...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Mark Rae
news:ban36s$bn8$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> I'm not sure I'd agree entirely with that. Its certainly true some albums
> are badly composed or produced compared to others and the bands themselves
> will always tell you they thought they made mistakes on certain albums. I
> think you can fairly say for instance that Union is "worse" than Close to
> the Edge in Yes' case.
No you can't, because there are no accepted measurements - it's all
subjective. By what creteria are you defining "better"?
You can say one piece of string is longer than another piece of string
because there is an accepted way of measuring pieces of string.
You can say that you like Close To The Edge more than you like Union - lots
of people would agree with you!
I can say that I like Foxtrot more than Invisible Touch - lots of people
round here might agree with me, but millions of other people wouldn't
judging by album sales. They might prefer Invisible Touch because they like
clever but still accessible pop music, and don't care much for 23-minute
long songs about good versus evil. For them, Invisible Touch is "better"
than Foxtrot because they like it more.
Dave@ECM-FAN
"Richard Barnes" <ric...@barnes-assoc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ban36s$bn8$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> are badly composed or produced compared to others and the bands themselves
> will always tell you they thought they made mistakes on certain albums. I
> think you can fairly say for instance that Union is "worse" than Close to
> the Edge in Yes' case.
No, I don't think so. While I suspect that you'd be hard pressed to find
them amongst hardcore Yes fans, I suspect there are people out there who
like Union better than CttE.
Why is CttE "better" than Union? Is CttE better or worse than Relayer or
TYA? For one thing to be better than another thing there has to be an
objective set of criteria. For example, Tony Levin is, without a doubt, a
better bassist than John Wetton, technically speaking (to bring up another
tired thread). There is no question. His knowledge of harmony, for one
thing, makes him better from a technical perspective, which is relatively
measurable. Does it make him a better musician? That, I believe, is more
in the eyes of the beholder because what makes one person and good musician
differs greatly from another person's point of view. So the answer to that
would have to be - you can't say, it's a matter of taste.
Best,
Dave
KISOTENGAI
seems to have lost its warmth and free spirited nature. A lot of it is
anal. New prog/metal artists tend to be technically and form
orientated but have little to say emotionally. A lot of music across
the board from rap to metal is very negative and dark. Pop has become
a buch of cliques thrown together with little thought or feeling. I
just can't warm up to any of it.
That being said musical taste is totaly subjective. Kenny G may be
disliked around here but there are a million other people to say
otherwise.
Dave@ECM-FAN
"KISOTENGAI" <pro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6c7beef1.03052...@posting.google.com...
> That being said musical taste is totaly subjective. Kenny G may be
> disliked around here but there are a million other people to say
> otherwise.
But they're all fools.....just kiddin'
Dave
Cabeza Borradora
There are good bands from all eras. There are bad bands from all eras. Doing
a unilateral comparison would be pointless.
--
"Flames are discouraged, except for those which quote famous (or
not-so- famous) Stooge lines. For example, it would be acceptable to
threaten to 'tear out your tonsils' or to 'gouge your eyes out'."
- alt.comedy.slapstick.3-stooges FAQ
Cabeza Borradora
>"Dave@ECM-FAN" <daviddotbinderatrogers.com> wrote in message
>news:FKoza.243267$w7k.2...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
>> What makes them better? Wrong term, as that is completely subjective.
>
>I couldn't agree more. I've always felt that there are only two types of
>music - music you like and music you don't like, which will be different for
>everyone. I've never understood how anyone can say that one track / album /
>band is better or worse than another any more than, say, Sunflowers is
>better or worse than Mona Lisa.
Mona Lisa was an Italian band, right? What country was Sunflowers from?
Sean McFee
> Mona Lisa was an Italian band, right?
French.
Regards,
--
Sean McFee
Richard Barnes
stronger, more resilient etc. Foxtrot and Invisible Touch are examples of
albums equally well composed and made but of different styles and I would
agree "better" doesn't apply but in the example I gave, Union was slung
together and no-one in the band has a good word for it. Close to the Edge
however was a better album.
--
Richard Barnes
"Mark Rae" <ma...@markrae.co.uk> wrote in message
news:PDGza.1461$P35.10...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Richard Barnes
but it does not make it a better album. See other post for why Ctte is
better than Union.
--
Richard Barnes
"Dave@ECM-FAN" <daviddotbinderatrogers.com> wrote in message
news:_sIza.221900$M81....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Mark Rae
news:psj0dvkqcd15dopm1...@4ax.com...
> Mona Lisa was an Italian band, right? What country was Sunflowers from?
LOL!
Dave@ECM-FAN
be a devil's advocate, since I personally prefer CttE) CttE a "better" album
than Union? Is it the composition - what makes that better? Is it the
playing? Years later I would hope the members of the band to be at least as
good if not more proficient than they were when they recorded CttE. Is it
the production? I assume that advances in recording technology would make
for an improved sound.
I stand by my original assertion. Better is in the ear of the behearer (to
steal from Mike D).
Best,
Dave
"Richard Barnes" <ric...@barnes-assoc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bapsdo$o0s$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
Stan Wolfe
Union is more stringy.
Stan
Tony Elka
<OC3Aa.237417$M81.1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, Stan
Wolfe <st...@magma.cant_bear_any_more_spam> wrote:
> Union is more stringy.
Silly stringy.
Tony
Julia
You want opinions, you got opinions :-) Stuff which I think is fairly strong:
Tortoise - something keeps me returning to _TNT_ time and time again, and
that durability is generally a good sign. The strange thing is that, on
objective/analytical grounds, they haven't got all that much going for them.
In comparison to 70s fusion, they're kind of slow and mellow. Maybe
that's the key, most 70s fusion wasn't all that interested in setting a mood.
Massive Attack - more or less started a genre by themselves. Obviously,
there is krautrock electronica in there, but they add their own individual,
frequently dark stamp.
Radiohead - I have mixed feeling on this mob. They strike me fundamentally
as a vocal band who make heavy use of the studio to add diversity. The
downside is that you never really get to hear the instrumental prowess of
the band, if indeed it possesses any. I mean I love stuff like "Pyramid
Song", but the fact remains that it's just a ballad, albeit quite
haunting and very well produced. People talk about their fondness for
krautrock and their mastery of texture, but personally I don't really see
it. There isn't really a 70s point of comparison IMHO, unless in some
parallel universe Roger Waters decided to become even more of a whining
git than he already was, and dropped the spacey Gilmore guitar solos in
favour of a more sombre, electronica approach.
Stuff about which I have some reservations:
Spiritualized - way too clever for their own good. They toss a bewildering
diversity of styles into the pot, but most of the time it doesn't work
particularly well IMHO. For that matter, I prefer the harder-edged sound of
Spacemen 3.
Tool - well they may have the light and the dark thing worked out, and
their videos are stellar, but I'm afraid I still don't find them
particularly interesting. Most of their efforts to build up tension don't
seem to work particularly well to my ears.
Drone bands, which unfortunately seems to define post-rock. Most of them
strike me as one-trick ponies, but I must confess I haven't explored the
range particularly well.
Outside the "prog" category, I find a couple of the stoner bands to have
merit, in comparison to Hawkwind or even Sabbath. Early Kyuss are possibly
the pick of the bunch. They don't belt you repetitiously in the face with
their riffs to quite the extent of Sabbath, and the bass work elevates
them above the rest.
--
Julia Dream
Richard Barnes
> I have fallen into no trap Richard. I read your other post. What makes
(to
> be a devil's advocate, since I personally prefer CttE) CttE a "better"
album
> than Union? Is it the composition - what makes that better? Is it the
> playing? Years later I would hope the members of the band to be at least
as
> good if not more proficient than they were when they recorded CttE. Is it
> the production? I assume that advances in recording technology would make
> for an improved sound.
>
the studio.
> I stand by my original assertion. Better is in the ear of the behearer
And I by mine - better is a relative term you cannot apply fairly to
_hearing_ the music - only prefer. It can be applied fairly however IMO to
the quality of the work. I may say I prefer my lasagne without any onion
but it would not be a better lasagne.
--
Richard Barnes
Dave@ECM-FAN
> > I stand by my original assertion. Better is in the ear of the behearer
>
> And I by mine - better is a relative term you cannot apply fairly to
> _hearing_ the music - only prefer. It can be applied fairly however IMO
to
> the quality of the work. I may say I prefer my lasagne without any onion
> but it would not be a better lasagne.
I know we're quibbling now, Richard, but you can play with semantics all you
want. Any judgement of a recording, barring very specific things, can only
be subjective. What is it, compositionally and structurally that makes CttE
"better" than Union? Again, you are throwing terms out loosely without
being specific.
And as for lasagna, if one without onions is the one you prefer, then for
you it is the better lasagna isn't it?
Best!
Dave
googlesux
> NigHTs1000 wrote...
> > I hear things about radiohead and spritualized and sigur ros being better than
> > our beloved 70's bands that influenced them certainly...what are peoples'
> > opinions here on newer music with "progressive" overtones(not calling anything
> > progressive rock) vs. the older "classic" stuff?
>
> Radiohead don't do much for me, but I certainly prefer Spiritualized and
> Sigur Ros to anything from such 70s dinosaurs as Genesis, Tull, or Pink
> Floyd, to name three.
Do you consider novels that aren't new to be "dinoaurs?" Just
wondering. I never quite understand why some people put an "expiration
date" on music. Once it reaches a certain age they can no longer like
it anymore.
Dave@ECM-FAN
"googlesux" <jkl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:589947d5.03052...@posting.google.com...
Some music dates itself. Some doesn't. Some books also date themselves.
Kerouac, while you can read him today, had much more relevance when he came
out, for example, or Richard Brautigan (In Watermelon Sugar was a real book
of the 60s, and doesn't particularly hold up well today).
I still listen to lots of music I listened to 30 years ago. But certain
things date themselves - synth sounds, for example, or drum sounds (70s drum
sound tended to be more muted/muffled, whereas current production often lets
the tubs ring more). It doesn't make the music bad by any means, but it
definitely is of a time. And there's nothing wrong with that.
I think the ultimately taste test is simply whether it resonates with you or
not, or as someone said on the list here recently: there are two types of
music - music you like, and music you don't. When it came out is
unimportant. As long as it does something for you it has relevance.
Best,
Dave
Cabeza Borradora
>
>"googlesux" <jkl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:589947d5.03052...@posting.google.com...
>> bradle...@hotmail.com (Bradley Evans) wrote in message
>news:<e54e0cfa.03052...@posting.google.com>...
>> > NigHTs1000 wrote...
>> > > I hear things about radiohead and spritualized and sigur ros being
>better than
>> > > our beloved 70's bands that influenced them certainly...what are
>peoples'
>> > > opinions here on newer music with "progressive" overtones(not calling
>anything
>> > > progressive rock) vs. the older "classic" stuff?
>> >
>> > Radiohead don't do much for me, but I certainly prefer Spiritualized and
>> > Sigur Ros to anything from such 70s dinosaurs as Genesis, Tull, or Pink
>> > Floyd, to name three.
>>
>> Do you consider novels that aren't new to be "dinoaurs?" Just
>> wondering. I never quite understand why some people put an "expiration
>> date" on music. Once it reaches a certain age they can no longer like
>> it anymore.
>
>Some music dates itself. Some doesn't. Some books also date themselves.
>Kerouac, while you can read him today, had much more relevance when he came
>out, for example, or Richard Brautigan (In Watermelon Sugar was a real book
>of the 60s, and doesn't particularly hold up well today).
In Watermelon Sugar _is_ incredibly dated. I think a lot of his other stuff
holds up pretty well, though. Especially his later works.
Richard Barnes
>
> "Richard Barnes" <ric...@barnes-assoc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:basgr3$25c$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> > > I stand by my original assertion. Better is in the ear of the
behearer
> >
> > And I by mine - better is a relative term you cannot apply fairly to
> > _hearing_ the music - only prefer. It can be applied fairly however IMO
> to
> > the quality of the work. I may say I prefer my lasagne without any
onion
> > but it would not be a better lasagne.
>
> I know we're quibbling now, Richard, but you can play with semantics all
you
> want. Any judgement of a recording, barring very specific things, can
only
> be subjective. What is it, compositionally and structurally that makes
CttE
> "better" than Union? Again, you are throwing terms out loosely without
> being specific.
>
right musical terminology - Squire, Howe, Rabin, Wakeman etc would be able
to do that far better and have done. All decry the way Union was put
together as an album and the weakness of many of the songs on it from a
compositional point of view plus the lack of work in the final mixing.
Rabin even says of one of his own songs ""Saving my Heart" should have been
something different but didn't turn out to what it could have been. In
general I think the whole album stinks".
Compare this to the creation of CttE where endless hours of argument and
rework went into getting the final product right. So I think from a
technical and quality standpoint, CttE can be said to be better than Union.
If someone "prefers" Union, that's fine - for them it is the better album
but as a product it is not.
> And as for lasagna, if one without onions is the one you prefer, then for
> you it is the better lasagna isn't it?
>
For me, yes, as a product no because Lasagne is meant to have Onions in it.
Actually, that was a pretty dumb analogy now I think of it. I should have
stayed at least in the art realm. Try this. I have two paintings on my
wall by a husband and wife amateur artist, one by each of them. One is of
old ships in the water, the other still life. In the still life painting
the artist has clearly not fully grasped the concept of depth and some of
the fruit is decidedly two-dimensional. The ships picture is fine. I
prefer the one of the fruit because the subject is nearer to my personal
tastes but it is not the "better" painting, which is the one of the ships
where the artist has understood and applied appropriate artistic principles
and methods.
If that doesn't convince you that I'm not talking out of my arse, I concede
:-)
--
Richard Barnes
Dave@ECM-FAN
> >
> Its hard to get to a lot of detail because I have difficulty finding the
> right musical terminology - Squire, Howe, Rabin, Wakeman etc would be able
> to do that far better and have done. All decry the way Union was put
> together as an album and the weakness of many of the songs on it from a
> compositional point of view plus the lack of work in the final mixing.
> Rabin even says of one of his own songs ""Saving my Heart" should have
been
> something different but didn't turn out to what it could have been. In
> general I think the whole album stinks".
Listen,. Richard, I hope you know I am being devil's advocate here. I am
not advocating Union over CttE. It's just an example. My point is if one
cannot articulate why something is objectively better than something else,
then one can only assert one's opinion that they prefer one over the other.
Let's pick another example that may be more to the point. Probably my
favourite King Crimson CDs are Lizard, Larks Tongues in Aspic and
Discipline. Are they "better" than Islands, Red or Thrak? I don't think I
could say that, but to my ears they are. But that's only to my ears. There
are many folks out there who will argue that Court of the Crimson King is
better.....or whatever. But they're all pretty fine records, and different
ones resonate with different people more or less. So saying that 90's prog
as a whole is better than the 70s work from whence they came has to be
wholly subjective. Sure, you can pick some specific examples and break it
down to some absolutes (maybe), but to assess a period as a whole? I don't
think so.
> > Try this. I have two paintings on my
> wall by a husband and wife amateur artist, one by each of them. One is of
> old ships in the water, the other still life. In the still life painting
> the artist has clearly not fully grasped the concept of depth and some of
> the fruit is decidedly two-dimensional. The ships picture is fine. I
> prefer the one of the fruit because the subject is nearer to my personal
> tastes but it is not the "better" painting, which is the one of the ships
> where the artist has understood and applied appropriate artistic
principles
> and methods.
Of course you didn't identify who painted which picture?!!?:-) But given I
know what you mean, I agree - there *are* some objective things you can use
to assess. But you can only do that with very specific things. To try to
assign such a supposedly objective assessment to an entire period in a
musical genre is impossible.
>
> If that doesn't convince you that I'm not talking out of my arse, I
concede
> :-)
Never said you were. My point is that a lot of people banter about the word
better when they really mean "I prefer it". Some people think that if they
prefer it, it *is* better. Mike Dickinson, for example (just kiddin' there,
Mike!). I prefer to stay away from making global comments that are anything
other than my opinion because, for one thing, there's probably someone out
there who is more technically proficient/knowledgable than I am, and can
refute any arguments I put forward.
Best,
Dave
Henry Potts
>I've not pursued Radiohead or Spiritualized after hearing a couple of
>tracks from their albums "OK Computer" and "Something about Floating in
>Space" (can't remember!). And I really wanted to like these guys, too.
Later Radiohead is notably different from _OK Computer_ (and even more
different from even earlier Radiohead). _Kid A_ is much more
experimental, more akin to the likes of Godspeed You Black Emperor! than
_OK Computer_ in places.
--
Henry
oscarth...@sesamestreet.com
<he...@REMOVETOEMAILbondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> _Kid A_ is much more experimental, more akin to the likes of Godspeed You Black Emperor!
You say that like it's a good thing...