post rock

[fatcat]

Tony

There is a world of difference between say The Groundhogs and Kiss

Yes I totally agree. The last time I saw Tony McFee was at the Witchwood a couple of years ago, previous to that was about 25 years ago at Wigan Casino. One of his best solos IMO opinion is on Live Right. Virtuoso, yes.

I have very little respect for performers like Dio, he may well be technically competent, but IMHO he invented nothing

IMO Dio's style of singing was innovative. Dio's style of singing and phrasing was the blue print for rock vocalists for years.

Post rock is rock, it is far more true to what real rock is about than some AGEING poodle rehashing and repeating the past could ever hope to be.

This is a good theory, but it will never happen. Every style of music has its time and place in history. How many rock groups have come up with an innovative style of music more than once. Dio’s style of singing can only be innovative once. Do you expect him to come up with an innovative style every 12 months. I appreciated his vocals thirty years ago, I still do today.
Motzart composed symphonies based on the blueprint provided by Hayden. Motzart’s innovation was to add woodwind to the orchestra, which Hayden then copied. Beethoven then added more innovations to the symphonic form. Motzart music is still very popular today, as is Dio’s.


How many times have Faust come up with an innovative style of, OK, music.

I agree that rock music was not a pretty sight in its death throws, but this should have no bearing on what had gone before.

Chris

"I’m sorry to hear the musical abilities of ELP and Yngwie Malmsteen have gone over your head. "

ELP & Yngwie Malmsteen are undoubtedly great technuicians. Neither of them appears ever to have had many original ideas, though. Emersons cod-classical noodlings debase both rock and classical genres.

I totally agree, this was a bit of sarcasm aimed at Tony. He implied if somebody doesn’t like a style of music it is because it has gone over their head. He then stated he dislikes ELP and Yngwie Malmsteen.

"Anybody who has heard Richie Blackmores solo on Space Trucking on the Made In Japan album would laugh at this suggestion."

I have heard the above mentioned solo. Fatuous in the extreme (IMHO).

I chose this example because it is indeed a flamboyant guitar solos. Thirty years ago it was highly thought of. That’s what people wanted to see and hear. But as I have said everything has its time. At a recent Dio concert as soon as it was obvious a drum solo was starting everybody rushed to the Bar or Toilet. Me included.

Deep Purple were always a highly derivative band

Tony doesn’t think so. Who where the first rock group to play with an orchestra

I have no idea if there is an ‘official’ definition, but IMHO post rock is the delayed reaction to Krautrock (especially Neu!, Faust and Can)

Are these so called post rock group derivative of Krautrock.

Who is the innovator of post rock.

Tony has described post rock as

Post rock song structure tends to be far more organic and flowing; you are aware the music is totally different to what it was a minute ago, but have to figure out when and how it got there. There are strong echoes of the American minimalists (Riley, Reich, Glass) in this music.

Does this mean all post rock groups conform to the above statement and are they derivative of Riley, Reich, Glass.

In twenty years time will you be telling everybody that the post rock groups you admire today are a load of crap.

DS

I’m sure the only musicians the world would worse off without are Bob Geldof and Bono. Oh and David Bellamy wood miss Sting.

 

[Tony L]

Every style of music has its time and place in history.

Exactly. Rock ‘n’ roll was a 50s musical form in the same way heavy rock was an early 70s form, punk a late 70s form and post rock is a late 90s-00 form. Popular musical genres have a instinctive sell by date. There is no point in continuing after the sell by date. I thoroughly enjoy the innovative stuff from all these genres, but see I no point in acts that rehash after the fact or are stuck in a rut. I just back catalogue the good and innovative stuff I missed and move on. I see no point in tribute bands, whether they play cover versions or not.

How many rock groups have come up with an innovative style of music more than once.

Quite a few actually. Bowie is a good example, as are your favourites Faust. Lets stick with Faust; they started life as a experimental commune based free improvisational group, they are still in existence and have embraced electronica and computer technology and are producing music that is almost totally unrecognisable to their roots. They have kept an open mind and progressed, they were impossible to categorise in 1970, and amazingly still are!

Most great rock bands only produce a couple of truly great albums and then burn out or explode. These are the ones that tend to take a place in history, not the ones who simply refuse to die and become a standing joke.

Dio’s style of singing can only be innovative once.

As many times as that?

Do you expect him to come up with an innovative style every 12 months.

If he wishes to be taken seriously as a creative force, yes. Maybe every couple of years is more realistic. Doing the same tired, outdated thing over and over is commercially motivated, there is no creativity in it. It is a way of earning a living for an elderly ex-rock star. It is not art.

I agree that rock music was not a pretty sight in its death throws, but this should have no bearing on what had gone before.

Agreed. There was a lot of great heavy rock from the late 60s until about 72, after that it got a bit stale and the innovators took their skills elsewhere.

Who where the first rock group to play with an orchestra

The Moody Blues.

Are these so called post rock group derivative of Krautrock.

Influenced by, just as 70s heavy rock was influenced by blues, classical and 60s psychedelica. There is a huge difference between being influenced and being derivative.

Who is the innovator of post rock.

Now is the correct time to read the thread again (hint: there are many).

Tony.

 

[ChrisJ]

AAAARGHHHH!!!

I'd forgotten about the Moody Blues! Jesus, If ever a band had a lot to answer for!!

Regarding who played with an orchestra first, you can just keep going back and back. Adam Faith, The Beatles, loads of Phil Spector stuff (better than most).....

With the stellar exception of Love's "Forever Changes", it hardly ever worked. Van Dyke Parks' "Song Cycle" pulls it off, too

 

[Tony L]

AAAARGHHHH!!!

I'd forgotten about the Moody Blues! Jesus, If ever a band had a lot to answer for!!

In later days they certainly produced a load of pretty horrible music but I must admit I like their output from 67-70 (I’ve got all 5). Lyrically it doesn’t stand up too well, but there is some interesting music in there, kind of pomp-psych rather than pomp-rock. Their only good lyric: “Timothy Leary’s dead / Oh no he’s not, he’s outside looking in…” was kind of pre-emptively cool as Leary’s cremated body is currently orbiting the earth in a satellite.

Regarding who played with an orchestra first, you can just keep going back and back. Adam Faith, The Beatles, loads of Phil Spector stuff (better than most).....

I will now argue with the pop quiz host in an attempt to hold onto my valuable winning point… IIRC Days Of Future Past was the first album credited to both a rock group and an orchestra / conductor (London Festival Orchestra / Peter Knight).

Tony.

 

[sideshowbob]

If anyone ever feels the need to hear this, don't bother:

Blues band/orchestra nonsense

Moody Blues, yuk. Hearing "isn't life str-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-nge" always makes me want to tear my hair out.

-- Ian

 

[space cadet]

Originally posted by Eric L
Ludwig,

In my experience, "Lo Fi" is (was?) used to refer to independent label bands that were influenced both by ambient electronica and acoustic pop and folk, and that liked the dirty, somewhat gritty sound introduced by noisy electronics and minimal production. Examples would be Ida, Galaxie 500, Codeine, Low, etc. The Lo Fi scene in Austin, Texas in the '90s definately saw themselves in this way. (I speak with some authority here, having married a girl who was very active in the scene and singer in a Lo Fi band named Ultrasound. )

Anyway, I just checked AMG's definition of "Lo Fi" and admittedly they use the word in a very different way, identifying bands like Pavement, Beck (!) and Liz Phair (!!) as "Lo Fi". I'm inclined to say AMG don't know what the f*uck they're talking about here, but will instead rest content with saying that if AMG's definition is accurate then the word is now used in a *very* different sense.

Personally I would definitely class early Pavement as lo-fi, and probably not Galaxie 500, Codeine or Low... How about Beat Happening?
How many Ultrasound bands are there? I know there was a terrible uk indie thingy with an obese man singing (hopefully you didn't marry him) and I've got two records by another Ultrasound (I think they are the same band?). One's a split posh lp only thingy and one's called Hamesh. Is this the band your wife was in or is there another Ultrasound?
Before I'm going to bed I'll reel off some of my fave post/space rock bands. Check them out if you bothered, they're all very different, they might not all really be post rock even, who cares...

Cerberus Shoal
Vibracathedral Orchestra
Mirza
Our Glassie Azoth
Alphane Moon
Azuza Plane
Salvatore
The Workhouse
Epic 45
Circle
Ramleh
Tarentel
The Land of Nod
Stylus
The Serpents
Longstone
Surface of Eceyon
Landing
Explosions in the Sky
Thela
SubArachnoid Space
Escapade
Skree
Skullflower
Rake
Pelt
My Education
Junkboy
Flying Saucer Attack
Labradford
Stars of the Lid
Kousokuya
Acid Mothers Temple
Fushitsusha
Jackie-O Motherfucker
Giardini di Miro
Fuxa

Go on treat yourself to at least some of the above, I'm off to bed.

 

[Mullardman]

What we're missing here, is a definition of 'rock'. AFAIAC, it was done by Hendrix, Cream, Taste, Free, Jeff Beck and a load of 'Mericun bands in the late 60's/very early 70's. Zeppelin only managed one or at most two albums worthy of note, in terms of innovation. Purple, Sabbath etc, whilst enjoyable enough in small doses, were definitely second string. Everything after was stylised, bleached out crud.
If memory serves, the term 'rock' arose sometime in the late 60's to describe music which was guitar based, but not traditional rock n roll. Within it, there was 'progressive', a poncy term for interminable solos of dubious worth, and a couple of other forms, so sad that I can't even remember them any more.

Also, being of different ages, (I suspect I'm one of the oldest, and naturally, wisest), we each have our 'golden age', which we believe was
the era.

Whilst we struggle with these inconsistencies, we are talking at crossed purposes. Unless someone can define 'rock'

Mull

PS, Opera is easy. If you like the tune, listen and enjoy. If you want to know more, watch the telly progs which give a synopsis of the story and then just watch and listen. But mainly, it's the tunes.

 

[Mullardman]

Originally posted by space cadet
Personally I would definitely class early Pavement as lo-fi, and probably not Galaxie 500, Codeine or Low... How about Beat Happening?
How many Ultrasound bands are there? I know there was a terrible uk indie thingy with an obese man singing (hopefully you didn't marry him) and I've got two records by another Ultrasound (I think they are the same band?). One's a split posh lp only thingy and one's called Hamesh. Is this the band your wife was in or is there another Ultrasound?
Before I'm going to bed I'll reel off some of my fave post/space rock bands. Check them out if you bothered, they're all very different, they might not all really be post rock even, who cares...

Cerberus Shoal
Vibracathedral Orchestra
Mirza
Our Glassie Azoth
Alphane Moon
Azuza Plane
Salvatore
The Workhouse
Epic 45
Circle
Ramleh
Tarentel
The Land of Nod
Stylus
The Serpents
Longstone
Surface of Eceyon
Landing
Explosions in the Sky
Thela
SubArachnoid Space
Escapade
Skree
Skullflower
Rake
Pelt
My Education
Junkboy
Flying Saucer Attack
Labradford
Stars of the Lid
Kousokuya
Acid Mothers Temple
Fushitsusha
Jackie-O Motherfucker
Giardini di Miro
Fuxa

Go on treat yourself to at least some of the above, I'm off to bed.

Would I be correct in assuming that the major criterion for inclusion of bands in your list is that nobody else has ever heard of them?

 

[dba]

Zeppelin only managed one or at most two albums worthy of note, in terms of innovation

disagree,1,2,3,Physical Graffitti and In Through The Out Door were all highly innovative when they were made,imho.even if you drop ITTOD as not being worthy of note,the others certainly are

 

[sideshowbob]

Originally posted by Mullardman
Would I be correct in assuming that the major criterion for inclusion of bands in your list is that nobody else has ever heard of them?

There's an awful lot of solipsism on this thread. I've heard of most of them, and have records by a lot of them, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

-- Ian

 

[Tony L]

The Workhouse were mentioned above; have they made an album yet? I've got two 7" singles and a 10" single, all are truly excellent. The first 7" is a beautiful Ltd Ed of 200 with a hand made sleeve with stuck on photographs - a lovely item. As with most of this kind of stuff that I own I bought them from www.rocketgirl.co.uk - I would strongly recommend the Rocket Girl 2xCD Compilation to anyone who hasn't got it. A great way of descovering some new bands.

Piano Magic are damn cool too, don't know where exactly they fit as they seem to change style so often, but the album Low Birth Weight is superb (I've got the ltd brown vinyl). The 2xCD Piano Magic comp Seasonally Affective is excellent.

Tony.

PS the Rocket Girl site doesn't seem to work properly in Firefox.

 

[fatcat]

Tony

When I listen to a piece of music, if it is pleasing I will listen to it again. I listen to the music for the pleasure it gives me. I don't listen to a piece of music to assess if it is innovative. Do you listen to a piece of music, decide if it is innovative then if it is tell yourself it is OK to like it. Have you ever listened to a piece of music, liked it, then discovered it was not innovative.

As we both agree a group will only be potent and fresh for a couple of albums. However, your suggestion they should die (not literally) is pretty selfish.

Last year I went to an Arthur Lee gig. I know this will shock you but most of the songs he played where from the Forever Changes album. It was brilliant. I would estimate 75% of the audience where not even born when the album was released. These youngsters having discovered Arthur Lee well after his “sell by date” obtained great pleasure from seeing him live, something that if you had your way would not happen. I suspect a lot of young people bought Forever Changes after seeing him at Glastonbury. Do you think this is a good or bad thing.

The same thing applied to the Dio gig except I would say only 50% of the audience where born after 1970.

Nobody mentioned the word standing joke at either gig.

Quote
"embraced electronica and computer technology"

So they do make their music using CUBASE.

Quote
"If he wishes to be taken seriously as a creative force, yes. Maybe every couple of years is more realistic. Doing the same tired, outdated thing over and over is commercially motivated, there is no creativity in it. It is a way of earning a living for an elderly ex-rock star. It is not art."

Who says he wants to be taken as a seriously creative force. I doubt he claims his music is art.
Get real, he's a vocalist not some pretentious arthouse ****er.

I doubt if being a rock vocalist from 1990 to 2000 was a commercial success. Some people would say he hasn't Sold Out. On the other hand Bowies changes in style where definitely commercially motivated.

Quote
"Who is the innovator of post rock."
Quote
"Now is the correct time to read the thread again (hint: there are many)."

Sorry, I was taking the piss with this question. My point being that post rock groups are supposed to be innovative, but they cant all be the innovators of post rock. The first group to use feedback sessions with tape-loops in the background probably where innovative, but where the second group derivative. I suppose if they where influenced, that would be OK.

Just read the thread again, all is now clear.
Post rock is beautifully sparse. Incredibly precise and ordered ‘math-rock’ Vox Continental type organ ambient and minimal noise effects seminal noisy and experimental outre (or ****ier very quixotic tempos space-rock noise-rock/post-rock experimental, angular, and invariably noisier directions a bit of a stretch tight and rigid mathematical precision the loudest live band free-form guitar noise and feedback sessions with tape-loops in the background

 

[ErikL]

Originally posted by Eric L
Do you know The Books or Bright Eyes? Both remind me somewhat of the Microphones.

Sorry, I missed this the first time around.

I know both, and prefer The Books. I own Bright Eyes' "Lifted... ... ..." but never got into it. There's also something about the media and fans drooling all over him as some brilliant visionary that turns me off. Should I try it again?

 

[Tony L]

So they do make their music using CUBASE.

Faust actually make their music with anything and everything! They are probably the least line-up limited band I can think of; find a skip full of junk and Faust will turn it into something worth listening to.

I will dwell a little longer on the above quote as it opens up an interesting concept, and one that I have frequently run into with ‘old rockers’ :

Do you see music as process or results based? Does the method of production matter as much as the end result, i.e. is the stereotypical concept of virtuosity in any way necessary or even useful? To put it another way, how come Kraftwerk are 5000 times better and more imaginative than Whitesnake when they program their music?

Post rock is beautifully sparse. Incredibly precise and ordered ‘math-rock’ Vox Continental type organ ambient and minimal noise effects seminal noisy and experimental outre (or ****ier very quixotic tempos space-rock noise-rock/post-rock experimental, angular, and invariably noisier directions a bit of a stretch tight and rigid mathematical precision the loudest live band free-form guitar noise and feedback sessions with tape-loops in the background

Excellent, now go out and form a band.

Tony.

 

[sideshowbob]

Faust build virtually all their own electronics btw.

-- Ian

 

[Mullardman]

Originally posted by sideshowbob
There's an awful lot of solipsism on this thread. I've heard of most of them, and have records by a lot of them, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

-- Ian

I was being a little mischievious when I wrote that! I'm not particularly into rock any more, other than listening to live local bands of variable quality. But 'solipsism'? ( I had to look that one up!) I don't see your point.
Mull

 

[Mullardman]

Originally posted by dba
disagree,1,2,3,Physical Graffitti and In Through The Out Door were all highly innovative when they were made,imho.even if you drop ITTOD as not being worthy of note,the others certainly are

We'll just have to agree to differ on that one. Innovation in any case is of little importance to me, I only raised it in the context of the general innovation that typified 'rock' (whatever 'rock' is) in the early days. These days I'm just as happy to hear somebody do something well, as to do something new. And I just know that last comment is going to bring wrath down on me.
Mull

 

[Mullardman]

Define 'Rock'...... please!

Mull

 

[joel]

Originally posted by Mullardman
These days I'm just as happy to hear somebody do something well, as to do something new.

Fair enough, but well is not 200mph fretwanking. George Benson or Paco de Lucia are technically way ahead of the likes of Ynga whassiname (at least the bits I've heard), but they don't play "faster" (well most of the time).
Virtuosity is not simply speed. This is a common mistake among hard rock fans I find.

Do you see music as process or results based? Does the method of production matter as much as the end result, i.e. is the stereotypical concept of virtuosity in any way necessary or even useful?

I was under the impression that most music these days was made in a very similar way: Record something, then pass it through Protools to make it "right".

 

[sideshowbob]

Originally posted by Mullardman
I was being a little mischievious when I wrote that! I'm not particularly into rock any more, other than listening to live local bands of variable quality. But 'solipsism'? ( I had to look that one up!) I don't see your point.
Mull

We had fatcat saying that things he doesn't like aren't music, then I read your post as saying that because you hadn't heard of something posts about it were somehow suspect. Both solipsistic positions, since they assume the knowledge and tastes of one individual are the only things at issue. But since you were being mischievous you're forgiven.

-- Ian