# favorite rock band of all time for you... me.. Velvet underground dont ask why?



## deprofundis (Apr 25, 2014)

I dont know what is it about this band that i rank above beatles and Stones godz of pop rock, but Velvet Underground iss so art school, lou reed has a good voice, the drum is super it'S experimental who care if tthey did not make 20 album, i favor quality over quantity.
:tiphat:


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

It seems like you can trace just about everything that happened after them to something they did. So I guess if you like rock, you somehow like the Velvets.


----------



## deprofundis (Apr 25, 2014)

*It seems like you can trace just about everything that happened after them to something they did. So I guess if you like rock, you somehow like the Velvets.*

Well said dear *Manxfeeder, *have a nice day :tiphat:


----------



## AClockworkOrange (May 24, 2012)

Shouldn't this be in the non-classical forum?

My favourite rock band however is Queen - my gateway to music as a whole, leading me to further Rock then Metal and Freddie Mercury's Barcelona album with Montserrat Caballe played a part in leading me to Classical (along with a certain film...).

A very diverse band who excelled live, I listen to them as often now as ever.


----------



## deprofundis (Apr 25, 2014)

*Shouldn't this be in the non-classical forum?
*
Indeed *AclockworkOrange* , i post it in the wrong forum , im sorry folks please move this to the non classical music please kind Op
:tiphat:


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

deprofundis said:


> i favor quality over quantity.
> :tiphat:


I'm with you, that's why My Bloody Valentine is my favorite rock band.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

deprofundis said:


> I dont know what is it about this band that i rank above beatles and Stones godz of pop rock, but Velvet Underground iss so art school, lou reed has a good voice, the drum is super it'S experimental who care if tthey did not make 20 album, i favor quality over quantity.
> :tiphat:


Great choice! The Velvet Underground are perhaps the most influential artists (any art form) from the last 50 years. Unquestionably one of the great Rock bands/artists of all time, forever altering its landscape and inspiring countless artists/bands and the formation of several genres/sub-genres. Their first two albums, especially, are all time masterpieces, rivaling (in their own way) almost anything produced by Classical music. Aside from maybe a handful of Classical composers, I know of no other artists in music history that influenced so much _substantial_ music in their wake.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Hard to narrow down to one band. Many have had their moments. But the one most consistent over their career to my liking may have to be the Talking Heads.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

deprofundis said:


> I dont know what is it about this band that i rank above beatles and Stones godz of pop rock, but Velvet Underground iss so art school, lou reed has a good voice, the drum is super it'S experimental who care if tthey did not make 20 album, i favor quality over quantity.
> :tiphat:


Listen to this: 






AfterHours said:


> Their first two albums, especially, are all time masterpieces, rivaling (in their own way) almost anything produced by Classical music.


Oh dear God

-----

To answer the original question, my favorite band is the Beatles, but nobody likes that answer, so let's say it's Genesis


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Hard to narrow down to one band. Many have had their moments. But the one most consistent over their career to my liking may have to be the Talking Heads.


Talking Heads are great too.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

deprofundis: I can't tell if you're being intentionally ridiculous or English is just your second language, either way your threads are very amusing.

Yes. The VU is simply the greatest rock band there ever was, their "Complete Matrix Tapes" recordings being the pinnacle of rock music IMO


----------



## JohnD (Jan 27, 2014)

AClockworkOrange said:


> Shouldn't this be in the non-classical forum?
> 
> My favourite rock band however is Queen - my gateway to music as a whole, leading me to further Rock then Metal and Freddie Mercury's Barcelona album with Montserrat Caballe played a part in leading me to Classical (along with a certain film...).
> 
> A very diverse band who excelled live, I listen to them as often now as ever.


Yes, thread belongs in Non-Classical Music.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

WildThing said:


> I'm with you, that's why My Bloody Valentine is my favorite rock band.


Also a GENIUS band. Loveless is sublime, of course, but I can't help favoring the Tremolo and Glider EP's. It's probably just because I've heard the songs on Loveless so many times, but now a lot of them bore me. Of course Loomer, To Here Knows When, When You Sleep, and Soon are still divine. Also I prefer the version of To Here Knows When on Tremolo over the one on Loveless.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Of the few rock bands I like, Neil Young is my favorite.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Twenty years ago it would have been a choice between Genesis (from Trespass to Duke) or Pink Floyd (from AHM to The wall).

Now I pick Porcupine Tree.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I'll go for LIVING COLOUR


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

The Mothers...... take your pick which line up


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Fave band of all time is and will always be Black Sabbath. The REAL Sabbath with Ozzy tho. The first 6 albums are absolute classics.


----------



## Armanvd (Jan 17, 2017)

*Camel* . *Andrew Latimer* Is My Favourite Guitarist Too.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I was never much into rock outside the realm of heavy metal, but I think I'll go with Jethro Tull.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Cream closely followed by The Jimi Hendrix Experience then Jethro Tull.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Impossible to pick one.

Mothers
ELP
Tull
KC
Gentle Giant
The Magic Band
Chicago up to '74
National Health
Yes up to '77
Grateful Dead
Talking Heads


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Listen to this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh sorry, I forgot to verify this with you first  The Beatles and Genesis? Now I understand your reactions...


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Does it have to be only about "bands"? 

My top 50 Rock/Jazz Artists might read like this:

Charles Mingus
John Coltrane
Captain Beefheart
The Velvet Underground
Anthony Davis
Tim Buckley
Miles Davis
Cecil Taylor
Klaus Schulze
Bob Dylan
Faust
Robert Wyatt
Carla Bley
Sam Rivers
Roscoe Mitchell/Art Ensemble of Chicago
Anthony Braxton
Frank Zappa
Pere Ubu
Sun Ra
Pink Floyd
The Doors
The Pop Group/Mark Stewart
Ornette Coleman
Nick Cave
Lisa Germano
Ivo Perelman
Myra Melford
Mercury Rev
Jane Ira Bloom
Residents
Spring Heel Jack
Sonic Youth
Swans
Van Morrison
Marion Brown
Keith Jarrett
Diamanda Galas
Can 
Neil Young
Popol Vuh
Nico
Red House Painters 
Paul Bley
Albert Ayler 
My Bloody Valentine
Joanna Newsom
Don Cherry
Franz Koglmann
The Rolling Stones
Jimi Hendrix


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

AfterHours said:


> Does it have to be only about "bands"?
> 
> My top 50 Rock/Jazz Artists might read like this:
> 
> ...


So not much hey.....................


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

King Crimson in any and all of its incarnations. Soft Machine, Henry Cow, Zappa, and Jethro Tull are on my list too.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

A relatively obscure German band called Amon Düül II. Well, their 1969-1972 output at least (they got a bit mainstream after that). The "Yeti", "Tanz Der Lemminge" and "Wolf City" albums are brilliant from start to finish and very original, although I can hear some parallels with early Pink Floyd and Jefferson Airplane's more abstract moments in places, particularly in the voice of Renate Knaup, a sort of Germanic Grace Slick.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

Quite a few Tull fans on here and one of the very few rock bands that I've seen live more than once. I was taking pictures at the first gig and accidentally forgot to turn the flash on my camera off for the first one. Ian Anderson gave me a very annoyed look. Sorry about that Ian.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

"In the great hour of the decline of the genre...the opportunity of achieving the perfect work is excellent...when accumulated experience has utterly refined the artistic sensitivity."

....Ortega y Gasset, _Notes on the Novel_

Among Rock bands, the one that came closest to achieving "perfect": most consistently interesting, satisfying, yet complex work--was/is Led Zeppelin. Their music stands alone, while still having achieved (unlike some of the other bands mentioned here) enormous popularity. Quite an achievement indeed.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
Them
Otis Redding
The Velvet Underground
Jimi Hendrix
Led Zeppelin
Pink Floyd
Captain Beefheart
Neil Young
David Bowie
Elvis Costello
Tom Waits


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

AfterHours said:


> Oh sorry, I forgot to verify this with you first  The Beatles and Genesis? Now I understand your reactions...


Since I'm pretty sure by now that you haven't actually heard a note of early minimalist music in your life, I don't think you do.

(I also have my doubts about whether you've heard a note of pre-1976 Genesis, but that's a less important question.)


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

For some reason I tend to prefer single artists to bands, anyway if I should pick just one it would be The Residents. Onestly the quality of their discography is uneven and I could live without a lot their late music, but their early albums, especially in the seventies is absolutely unique in atmosphere and strangeness (maybe also because they were one of the few bands that used microtonality a lot). 
For me they are the David Lynch of ""rock"" music.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Since I'm pretty sure by now that you haven't actually heard a note of early minimalist music in your life, I don't think you do.
> 
> (I also have my doubts about whether you've heard a note of pre-1976 Genesis, but that's a less important question.)


Okay then, whatever you say as always!!! Honestly I could care less what you think you think about what I think!!! But because you're already so sure of the answer, by all means, keep making your baseless and pointless assumptions!!!


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

norman bates said:


> For some reason I tend to prefer single artists to bands, anyway if I should pick just one it would be The Residents. Onestly the quality of their discography is uneven and I could live without a lot their late music, but their early albums, especially in the seventies is absolutely unique in atmosphere and strangeness (maybe also because they were one of the few bands that used microtonality a lot).
> For me they are the David Lynch of ""rock"" music.


Yes, thank you for mentioning them. Love this section of Not Available, which is possibly the single most underrated "Rock" album of all time!


----------



## NishmatHaChalil (Apr 17, 2017)

I think my favorite would be The Beatles. After that, perhaps King Crimson (or Brian Eno, if solo artists count). I'm not that good in appreciating rock music, however, so my preferences in it reflect even less my judgments about quality or significance than they do in other fields. I do think The Beatles were the most important, but KC would not be second for me in that regard. Perhaps Eno would, but I'm not sure. KC was an important group, and perhaps it could qualify as second according to the arguments involved. In my judgment, however, there are some bands I consider more important than them, but which do almost to nothing for me, in part for personal inclination, but also in great part because I have a great problem in appreciating the tradition as a whole. My third favorite, Sigur Rós, is probably even more representative of this problem. My fourth may be The Beach Boys, who I think were far more important than SR, but who are less representative of my generation's sensibility.

In any case, as much as I hate it, my favorites usually stand in the border between rock and other genres. I probably cannot come to terms in my current state with the basic sonority of rock, so I usually tend to prefer rock artists who are close to other styles. Mainly pop in The Beatles and the BB's case, but also in Eno's, classical (only in inspiration) and eletronic in KC's and Eno's, and ambience in Eno and SR. SR is heavily indebted to Eno's contributions, though, so they may indirectly relate to the other styles at some level as well.



Strange Magic said:


> "In the great hour of the decline of the genre...the opportunity of achieving the perfect work is excellent...when accumulated experience has utterly refined the artistic sensitivity."
> 
> ....Ortega y Gasset, _Notes on the Novel_


In most occasions, I actually think that's not the case, but I find the idea very interesting! Thank you for sharing. To mention only one example, I'm sure that's true of Camoens, the national poet of Portugal. In the late Renaissance, he stands at the very end of Portugal's golden age, but most still agree he was their best author ever. One of my main interests in literary history is his influence in the early baroque. I recently put my hands on a critical anthology about that period of Italian poetry, so I will probably be researching it next year. I'm not sure what would be the top example of that sentence in classical music, though, according to my views. Perhaps Monteverdi? Though I don't think he stands out so much as Palestrina or, more perfectly, Josquin, in the sense of comprehensively compiling and expanding a previous style. Though part of the problem may lie in what I'm thinking of as decline. If the decline of a genre is merely the start of another dominant one, perhaps that would hold true in most cases, and I could think of more examples, but, then, I would suggest it may not be so much that the decline of a genre makes the context perfect for the new artist, but perhaps rather that the originality of the new artists makes it seem like the genre was in decline.

In any case, seeing OyG's original statement from another perspective, I think a genius can see the decline of a genre as a great opportunity for success and originality, and, if one does that, then it probably holds an influence in how we see their work. I think the same is true of the start of a genre or the peak of a genre, however, and, due to the interpretative complications I mentioned above, sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference between them (if there is any). After all, a new style usually leads the previous one to changes and, thus, at least in this very specific sense, to decline. Either way, it's a fascinating subject!



> Among Rock bands, the one that came closest to achieving "perfect": most consistently interesting, satisfying, yet complex work--was/is Led Zeppelin. Their music stands alone, while still having achieved (unlike some of the other bands mentioned here) enormous popularity. Quite an achievement indeed.


I understand why you feel that way! My vote would go for The Beatles, but perhaps I would agree with you regarding Zeppelin's position in Hard Rock and metal. I say "perhaps" because I have been convinced they were big plagiarizers, so I feel uneasy in attributing so much importance to their work, even though, at least as compilers and popularizers, they probably were the most influential group in the HR genre anyway (from my somewhat limited knowledge about it, at least). In any case, I cannot disagree, however, that they had the talent to plagiarize from others masterfully and present the work in a way that sounded fresh. My limited experience also suggests that they had the talent necessary to compose great original work, but that only makes me feel even more suspicious about the fact they stole so much, since they did not need to.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Zep's plagiarism has been the subject of previous discussion here on TC, with the usual complaints of Zep "borrowing" from various Bluesmen, etc. without proper acknowledgement. But my position was that: A) Zep were so good that they usually elevated/improved/transformed the pilfered material, often turning base metal into gold, and: B) the thus-transformed works became known and accessible to audiences far more immense than would otherwise obtain for the original artists and works. Not ethical, perhaps, but Art knew of no such stricture or limitation in their case.

If one listens carefully to Zep, one (I) is (am) astonished again and again by both their eclecticism and by the richness of their musical fabric. Almost all accompaniment to Rock, sung Rock, is essentially a quite simple rhythm track with quite simple, repeating, themes. Almost any Zep song, in contrast, provides instead a constantly varying, shifting, complex musical fabric behind Plant's voice and during the non-vocal interludes; one just needs to listen to be convinced of this. Yet their music was and is hugely popular--we're not talking about some obscure, esoteric cult band with a handful of fanatic admirers.

Zep came at a time--the late 1960s--when enough precursor music--Cream, maybe; Jimi; others people could name (the Beatles?)--had been issued, such that the unique group of talents gathered to be Led Zeppelin could begin to compose their complex, refined, yet totally accessible work: the elements were in place, the genre had reached a peak, and, at that time, there was nowhere further to go than where Zep was taking the music. Was it the great hour of the decline of the genre, of which OyG writes? A case could be made.


----------



## NishmatHaChalil (Apr 17, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> Zep's plagiarism has been the subject of previous discussion here on TC, with the usual complaints of Zep "borrowing" from various Bluesmen, etc. without proper acknowledgement. But my position was that: (...)


Thank you for the information and for your impressions! It was a very insightful post. I completely agree that LZ were much more than simple plagiarizes. They were also great compilers (in the sense of grasping big trends from isolated works), great adapters, great popularizers and, at other instances, even great original contributors. Whatever the merits, their first album is probably more representative of their plagiarism, but, comparing it to the sources they stole from, I actually think they had a much better idea of how rock music was changing. However, I still think their plagiarism was questionable and undermining. I also wonder at which point their merit as popularizers ends and their merit as original artists starts. I agree they had both, and I don't think being a popularizer is necessarily less important, but even so, that distinction may still be important to some extent, I find it difficult to evaluate.

I like how you put it here:



> Not ethical, perhaps, but Art knew of no such stricture or limitation in their case.


The case may be that they were both great artists _and_ extensive plagiarizers, and that's probably why I find judging their work so difficult.



> Was it the great hour of the decline of the genre, of which OyG writes? A case could be made.


That's an interesting idea! At least in the last sense I treated in my previous post, I do think that could be true. Beyond Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Uriah Heep and Black Sabbath also contributed to that transition, and precursors like Cream, Jimi and, earlier, the Stones and (sometimes) the Beatles already pointed towards it to different extents. I think HR would have happened without Zeppelin, but I don't deny their importance in it, and, without them, perhaps it would have been different.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

It is often observed that great artists freely borrow and, yes, steal from the works of others. Shakespeare is often mentioned; whole books have been written on Melville's wholesale mining from among many sources--Howard Vincent's _The Trying-Out of Moby Dick_ springs to mind. So I am inclined to give Zep--like Shakespeare and Melville--a pass on the plagiarism charge, and point out that a worse fate for the source works and artists would have been to be passed by; to murmur in obscurity rather than have the beam of Zeppelin's interest focus upon their effort. As Tom Petty sings, "You got lucky, babe, when I found you." It's going to be difficult to find artists free of the influences of others (but the search might turn up some interesting characters; I'm thinking of Henri Rousseau as a possible example).

I also think Led Zeppelin, like many of the most memorable Rock artists, transcends the common boundaries of classification. Zep was not Metal (though certainly a catalyst for metallurgy); not Hard Rock, not anything thus confining and specific--they were Led Zep, as the Beatles, Dylan, Jefferson Airplane, The Doors were what they were, _sui generis_.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Man, it's so great to see the lack of snobbery on here. I love the Stones every now and then: Let it Bleed is a masterpiece. And Dylan is a genius.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

It's obvious that Led Zeppelin plagiarized a bunch of quite obscure songs but I think they added magic to these songs which the originals didn't have: that's why these original songs remain quite obscure till this day while Led Zeppelin was one of the most popular bands in history... Or maybe there is the old 'racist' tradition of pop music - starting with Elvis Presley - that white people simply happen to steal the music of black musicians to make a lot of money out of it which the original black artists didn't manage to do because black didn't sell. Didn't Sam Philips, who discovered Elvis Presley, say something like: Elvis was what we were waiting for (to make a lot of money): a white boy who sang and moved like a black boy...

The music of Led Zeppelin obviously has it's roots in the British Blues Explosion of the sixties (and added folk to it later): white British musicians who played the black r&b from the US. Blues itself is a jazz tradition: that's why blues rock isn't pop music in the sense of a singer who is accompanied but really a group of musicians who all like to be on the forefront, playing long solos and excel on their instrument while competing in virtuosity with the other members of the band. The brilliant thing these British white blues players (and Jimi Hendrix) added was volume/loudness - hence using the newest technologies - so that the wild energy of the live jazz feel was amplified to the max, resulting in an overwhelming, loud and energetic experience. So 'hard rock' - actually hard blues rock - came to existence of which new genre Led Zepellin was definitely a great pioneer.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

A haunting exploration of the idea that the late 1960s did indeed represent "the great hour of the decline of the genre", in OyG's phrase, is provided in the amazing combination of art and text, the book _Rock Dreams_, 1982, with artwork by Guy Peellaert and text by Nik Cohn. It reminds one of William Blake's _Songs of Innocence and of Experience_ in its evocative fusing of image and copy, and is hypnotically compelling, drawing me in to re-read it every time I pick it up. I won't attempt to further discuss, explain, synopsize _Rock Dreams_, but anyone who really likes Rock music and its practitioners, origins, evolution, will be richly rewarded. It is listed as "an R&B Book, Published in 1982 by Rogner & Bernhard, New York. Distributed by Random House, Inc., New York for Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.". The illustrations and text are copyright 1973 (Peellaert and Cohn), and the excellent introduction by Michael Herr is copyright 1982.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

AfterHours said:


> The Beatles and Genesis? Now I understand your reactions...





AfterHours said:


> Okay then, whatever you say as always!!! Honestly I could care less what you think you think about what I think!!! But because you're already so sure of the answer, by all means, keep making your baseless and pointless assumptions!!!


Paired without comment


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> If one listens carefully to Zep, one (I) is (am) astonished again and again by both their eclecticism and by the richness of their musical fabric. Almost all accompaniment to Rock, sung Rock, is essentially a quite simple rhythm track with quite simple, repeating, themes. Almost any Zep song, in contrast, provides instead a constantly varying, shifting, complex musical fabric behind Plant's voice and during the non-vocal interludes; one just needs to listen to be convinced of this.


This could only have been written by somebody who

1. Likes Led Zeppelin

2. Has made a considerable effort to convince himself that Led Zeppelin is complex

3. Has carefully avoided listening to anybody else the same way



Agamemnon said:


> It's obvious that Led Zeppelin plagiarized a bunch of quite obscure songs but I think they added magic to these songs which the originals didn't have: [...]


Oh yes poor Howlin' Wolf had to wait for the middle class white session hacks to make his music magic. Jesus Christ.



Agamemnon said:


> that's why these original songs remain quite obscure till this day while Led Zeppelin was one of the most popular bands in history... Or maybe there is the old 'racist' tradition of pop music - starting with Elvis Presley *[?!?!?!?!]* - that white people simply happen to steal the music of black musicians to make a lot of money out of it which the original black artists didn't manage to do because black didn't sell.


You cannot possible think Elvis was the first white person to make money playing black people's music.

Anyway, race is one reason why Led Zeppelin made more money than Willie Dixon. Another is the same reason why Nat King Cole, Berry Gordy, and Michael Jackson made more money than Willie Dixon: they were more commercial.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Agamemnon said:


> It's obvious that Led Zeppelin plagiarized a bunch of quite obscure songs but I think they added magic to these songs which the originals didn't have: that's why these original songs remain quite obscure till this day while Led Zeppelin was one of the most popular bands in history... Or maybe there is the old 'racist' tradition of pop music - starting with Elvis Presley - that white people simply happen to steal the music of black musicians to make a lot of money out of it which the original black artists didn't manage to do because black didn't sell. Didn't Sam Philips, who discovered Elvis Presley, say something like: Elvis was what we were waiting for (to make a lot of money): a white boy who sang and moved like a black boy...
> 
> The music of Led Zeppelin obviously has it's roots in the British Blues Explosion of the sixties (and added folk to it later): white British musicians who played the black r&b from the US. Blues itself is a jazz tradition: that's why blues rock isn't pop music in the sense of a singer who is accompanied but really a group of musicians who all like to be on the forefront, playing long solos and excel on their instrument while competing in virtuosity with the other members of the band. The brilliant thing these British white blues players (and Jimi Hendrix) added was volume/loudness - hence using the newest technologies - so that the wild energy of the live jazz feel was amplified to the max, resulting in an overwhelming, loud and energetic experience. So 'hard rock' - actually hard blues rock - came to existence of which new genre Led Zepellin was definitely a great pioneer.


I would agree with your points here, as well as those of other posters. Despite Zep's plagiarism, they certainly transcended such with their own renditions, often taking their versions to monumental, hysterical emotional drama and proportions. Plant's hysteria, Page's guitar work, their huge sound, craft and production techniques, were very influential in the development of hard rock and heavy metal, not to mention the later so-called "grunge" acts (such as Soundgarden, Nirvana, Pearl Jam...)


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Tallisman said:


> Man, it's so great to see the lack of snobbery on here.


Here I'll fix that: It's true that Led Zeppelin helped invent metal, but metal is a third rate genre



Tallisman said:


> I love the Stones every now and then: Let it Bleed is a masterpiece. And Dylan is a genius.


Agreed. (Might change that last "is" to "used to be")


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Tull for me. An incredible 25 album legacy.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Magnum Miserium said:


> This could only have been written by somebody who
> 
> 1. Likes Led Zeppelin
> 
> ...


Correct on Count 1.

Your Count 2 suggests that you want to and ought to redefine Rock for us. I was under the impression that it began as a Peoples' music, and largely remains that today. But you will provide us with Great Misery's Approved List of Complex Rock that Resonates With as Large an Audience as does/did Led Zeppelin. My prediction is that your taste is far too fastidious and idiosyncratic for us ordinary mortals.

Your Count 3 is mere curled-lip unpleasantness of the sort we have come to expect from you. Please have a nice day!


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> Correct on Count 1.
> 
> Your Count 2 suggests that you want to and ought to redefine Rock for us. I was under the impression that it began as a Peoples' music, and largely remains that today. But you will provide us with Great Misery's Approved List of Complex Rock that Resonates With as Large an Audience as does/did Led Zeppelin.


There is no complex rock.



Strange Magic said:


> My prediction is that your taste is far too fastidious and idiosyncratic for us ordinary mortals.


I already said my favorite band is the Beatles



Strange Magic said:


> Your Count 3 is mere curled-lip unpleasantness


No it isn't



Strange Magic said:


> of the sort we have come to expect from you.


Who's "we"?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The Beatles and The Stones, The Byrds and The Beach Boys are my pillars.

I do agree with Profundis, that The Velvet Underground were most influential in regard to what followed after 1976 or so, with the "new era" of modern rock. They had a poetic sensibility in Lou Reed, and a generally artistic way of pursuing their ideas. Bob Dylan also, of course, had a hand in changing rock into a more serious artistic, poetic form.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I applaud MM's attempt to be taken seriously, but there are clearly degrees of simplicity/complexity in Rock. "We" do all know this; to deny it is, well,.....

I like the Beatles also. "We" have that in common, but their music is less complex than that of many other groups. Not a bad thing; not a good thing in their case; just a thing.

That Count 3 is curled-lip unpleasantness: you know it; I know it; "we" know it; they know it.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Magnum Miserium said:


> There is no complex rock.







(by the way, I've posted this only to make clear that there is rock that is complex in the superficial way you're defining complexity... but obviously complexity can't be reduced to polyrhyhtms, extended harmonies, form and stuff like that... a piece that is simple considering just those aspects could have a lot of other subtleties difficult to analyze, that's why there are super intricate pieces that are crap and three chords songs that are masterpieces).


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

norman bates said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FhhB9teHqU
> 
> (by the way, I've posted this only to make clear that there is rock that is complex in the superficial way you're defining complexity...


But Captain Beefheart isn't complex, so you didn't



norman bates said:


> but obviously complexity can't be reduced to polyrhyhtms, extended harmonies, form and stuff like that...


Depends on what "stuff like that" means



norman bates said:


> a piece that is simple considering just those aspects could have a lot of other subtleties difficult to analyze, that's why there are super intricate pieces that are crap and three chords songs that are masterpieces).


No, some three chord songs really _are _simple and are also masterpieces


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

There's some incredibly complex rock. The Mothers, King Crimson, Soft Machine, Henry Cow. I could go on... And, for the record, Led Zeppelin are awesome.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

chill782002 said:


> There's some incredibly complex rock. The Mothers, King Crimson, Soft Machine, Henry Cow. I could go on... And, for the record, Led Zeppelin are awesome.


No there isn't. King Crimson is complex compared to Chuck Berry. They're not complex compared to Bartok. That's not "incredibly."


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Magnum Miserium said:


> But Captain Beefheart isn't complex, so you didn't


Beefheart is complex in a lot of different ways. For instance, if you go to the minute 20 in the video, you can see that just in the first measure of the song an instrument is playing in 5/4 and another one in 7/4 and the instruments are prepared, to add to the complexity of the sound (in a way not different from what Cage did with the prepared piano). And, as the guy (who's a composer who besides Beefheart on his channel analyses old, modern and contemporary classic music like Bach, Webern, Kurtag, Stravinsky etc) explains in the video they were playing that stuff not by chance but deliberately, since there are other takes of the music where one can see that they were always playing those rhythms. Then there's his way of singing, his lyrics, the sound.
If you can't hear the complexity in that music it's your fault.



Magnum Miserium said:


> Depends on what "stuff like that" means


It means basically elements that one would find on a score of a classical piece of music. The problem is, that a lot of elements of the music can't be notated, and those elements are often exactly the blood and what really matters in non classical music.



Magnum Miserium said:


> No, some three chord songs really _are _simple and are also masterpieces


Then why some three chord songs are masterpieces and a lot of other are simply trite songs? What's the difference, if we consider only those technical elements I've said above?


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Complexity can be interesting in and of itself, but it's not the overall goal anyway. There is plenty of "complex" music that is awful. There is plenty of "complex" music that is extraordinary. The common denominators of all music (or even all art) that is most extraordinary are:

(1) Is it emotionally and/or conceptually expressive/significant?
(2) Does it express such with ingenuity/creativity?
(3) Does it accomplish (1) and (2) to a historically extraordinary degree, standing out from most (or even all) other works?

If it's an emphatic yes to (1) through (3), you likely have a historically amazing work or even an all time masterpiece on your hands that will withstand virtually endless revisitation and scrutiny, its qualities never seeming to wane, so long as it has infact been assimilated, and thus _understood_ and _experienced_, to begin with. (1) through (3) equates to DEPTH and such a work will prove lasting, even permanently established. One can even predict ahead of time with newer works, those which will last, especially in art forms where its critics/historians are most educated/experienced and these ideals have been altered the least, if at all (such as Classical music).

While I would maintain that Classical probably has more such works than any other art form (of those I've thoroughly assimilated: Rock, Jazz, Classical, Film, Paintings), Rock (including its many genres/subgenres) also has many such works, as does Jazz (including its many genres/subgenres).

(4) One's assimilation and determination of the qualities of (1) through (3) is generally a subjective issue, but also tends to correlate strongly (and change) with one's experience in assimilating music of similar lineage/genre to that being evaluated, other genres of music (and even all art forms).

While I do agree with the superiority of Classical music, I also feel it can be overstated, particularly by those that haven't thoroughly assimilated Rock and/or Jazz enough (including their many genres/subgenres, and especially the most singular and successfully experimental works among them).


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

norman bates said:


> For instance, if you go to the minute 20 in the video, you can see that just in the first measure of the song an instrument is playing in 5/4 and another one in 7/4 and the instruments are prepared


Woah!!!



norman bates said:


> If you can't hear the complexity in that music it's your fault.


If you hear complexity where there isn't, it's your fault



norman bates said:


> Then why some three chord songs are masterpieces and a lot of other are simply trite songs?


Could be any number of things. All that's necessary is that _something_ be done _exceptionally _well



AfterHours said:


> While I do agree with the superiority of Classical music, I also feel it can be overstated, particularly by those that haven't thoroughly assimilated Rock and/or Jazz enough (including their many genres/subgenres, and especially the most singular and successfully experimental works among them).


The experimental-ness of rock and jazz are overstated by those who haven't thoroughly assimilated classical music (especially recent classical music)


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Woah!!!


you can hear something like that in composers like Elliott Carter. For instance that is more rhythmically complex that every piece of classical music before the twentieth century. Isn'it enough?



Magnum Miserium said:


> Could be any number of things. All that's necessary is that _something_ be done _exceptionally _well)


like what? Take an example.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Magnum Miserium said:


> The experimental-ness of rock and jazz are overstated by those who haven't thoroughly assimilated classical music (especially recent classical music)


I actually would agree with you that this can certainly be the case, and I've seen it often. This is especially common with sites that are predominantly devoted to Rock music (much more so than users on Classical sites stating the reverse about Rock). I think most "Greatest" Rock albums are _very_ overvalued. And it is highly unlikely they would be so valued if those same listeners/critics, etc, assimilated Classical music (or Jazz for that matter ... or, hell, even Rock music and all its subgenres/offshoots!). At the same time, Rock and Jazz, by and large, do have their own unique sound worlds that, regardless of notation or structural similarities (etc), tend to emote or evoke different states of mind, environments, etc, than most of Classical music. Prior to their inception (especially) and past a superficial/surface evaluation, you won't find anything in Classical music much like Trout Mask Replica, or The Velvet Underground and Nico, or Astral Weeks, or Rock Bottom, or Blonde On Blonde, or A Love Supreme, or Escalator Over the Hill, or The Doors, or or or...


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

norman bates said:


> you can hear something like that in composers like Elliott Carter. For instance that is more rhythmically complex that every piece of classical music before the twentieth century.


No it isn't. Polyrhythms aren't complex per se. Polyrhythms _can_ involve very complex rhythmic relationships, but they don't necessarily.



AfterHours said:


> Prior to their inception (especially) and past a superficial/surface evaluation, you won't find anything in Classical music much like Trout Mask Replica, or The Velvet Underground and Nico, or Astral Weeks, or Rock Bottom, or Blonde On Blonde, or A Love Supreme, or Escalator Over the Hill, or The Doors, or or or...


You might as well say you won't find anything in classical music much like "Chuck Berry's On Top." It would be exactly as true.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Hendrix, first three LPs.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Magnum Miserium said:


> You might as well say you won't find anything in classical music much like "Chuck Berry's On Top." It would be exactly as true.


Yes, okay, exactly the same thing!

That was my last attempt to see if you could manage to _not_ argue for the sake of arguing, but it's clear to me now that you just can't seem to do it, in turn offering nothing of substance. See ya.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

chill782002 said:


> There's some incredibly complex rock. The Mothers, King Crimson, Soft Machine, Henry Cow. I could go on... And, for the record, Led Zeppelin are awesome.


All of them are great. But like Bates and MM is saying (they are basically sort of saying the same thing to me), rock is good even without the complexity. The concept behind the rhythms in Beefheart is not really complex, and it makes an interesting sound. If it was truly complex, like rhythms generated from some algorithm, it woulda probably been less interesting. 3 chord songs can sound magnificent too.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Don Van Vliet, known in musical circles as Captain Beefheart, is one of the most original and important musicians of the twentieth century. 

Van Vliet has forged a musical language that draws upon various recklessly diverse sources, such as the folklore of fairy tales, the abstract paintings of Jackson Pollock, the free association of surrealism, the symphonies of Charles Ives, children nursery rhymes, Van Gogh, free-jazz, and commercial music. But he used the Delta blues, in its most primitive and roughest expression, as the foundation and scaffolding of his artistic construction. 

At the same time, Van Vliet performed a prodigious operation of physical and psychological abuse on those sources, and in particular on the blues, obtaining the musical equivalent of a frightful visual deformation, a sort of demented exaggeration of the artistic dogmas of surrealism, Dadaism and cubism. 

In order to realize that crazy deformation, that spatial-temporal warping, that apocalyptic and blasphemous perspective, Van Vliet exploited his outrageous vocal versatility that allowed him to impersonate all kinds of different and extreme characters in a subliminal performance of schizophrenia, often within the same piece, and to visit states of psychic depression and hallucination with all the grace of a charging rhinoceros. 

While a great part of rock music was assuming a mythological quality that ultimately reduced itself to shamanism and alchemy in opposition to distressing reality, Van Vliet proceeded in the opposite direction, emphasizing the psychic imbalances caused by that reality, pushing them to the excess of madness, feeding on them like a spiritual cannibal. If the rest of rock music put its heart into music, Van Vliet put his mind into it, but not the rational mind, rather the instinctive and primordial one, the mind torn to pieces by the frustrations and the contradictions of modern society, the mind of the collective subconscious that expresses itself in twitches, growls, roars and howls, like an animal in a cage. 

Van Vliet laid a theoretical bridge between the animal that still churns within our genetic inventory and the synthetic man of the year two thousand. His was a form of hyper-realism grafted to the anxieties and phobias of the atomic age, a hyper-realism that surged in a grotesquely pagan representation of that era. 

In many ways this record is the equivalent of the Fantasia in Schumann's career. Adorno wrote that the Fantasia only seems the product of a madman, while in reality it is the expression of the madman one second before folly takes over. 

The most notable difference from the earlier albums is the duration of the cuts, for the most part very short. Another superficial difference is in the instrumentation, augmented by horns. 

The work is so innovative and complex as to be nearly indecipherable. The rhythm section sounds so polyrhythmic that all rhythm is lost. The singing , vaguely interested in music, travels within alien universes. The guitar acts as atonal contracanto. The counterpoint of the ensemble is something halfway between the orchestral chaos of Charles Ives and the audacity of John Cage. The chaotic but rational improvisation is reminiscent of the frenetic geometry of Ornette Coleman, who in turn was influenced by Van Vliet. The heterogeneous meter that Van Vliet produces are to melody what the free poetry of the 1900's are to rhyme. But free-jazz and avant garde music are only alibis, pretexts to freely vent the leader's anarchical compulsions. The album is by all accounts an anthology of chaos in all its musical forms. For as deeply varied as they are from one another, these twenty-eight cuts are many versions of the same scene of devastation. Trout Mask Replica is above all a collage of abstract paintings, each different from the other in color, intensity and contrast, yet they're all homogeneous in their "abstraction". 

Trout Mask Replica is a monumental experiment in irregularity and an impressive catalog of vocal acrobatics. Raucousness, gargling, heavy breathing, whispering, falsetto, etc. are needed in order to dismantle the art of singing and transform it in a degraded emission of beastly verses. The dominant instrument is the clarinet that pops up everywhere in a "hit and run" guerrilla mode. 

The overall meaning of the pandemonium in Trout Mask Replica is not only playfulness, or the negation of a meaning. The allegorical messages of Van Vliet's masterpiece are multiple, hidden by layers of abstractions that allow a cosmic-metaphysical interpretation, despite the author's pretense of illiteracy. These interpretations redirect the listener toward a form of apology for madness, to the primordial stages, and to chaos, counterposed against the monolithic order of technocratic society. Beefheart uses the Delta blues as a pretext, but dismembers its structure, rhythm, harmony, tonality and melody, and then reassembles the pieces randomly, injecting it with free-jazz and casual improvisation. Beefheart is the first musician to perform an avant garde operation of such capacity without the least intellectual pomposity. 

--Piero Scaruffi


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> ...feeding on them like a spiritual cannibal...
> The allegorical messages of Van Vliet's masterpiece are multiple, hidden by layers of abstractions that allow a cosmic-metaphysical interpretation, despite the author's pretense of illiteracy.
> 
> --Piero Scaruffi


 Why would anyone want to make a "cosmic-metaphysical interpretation" out of that album? I feel this is a con job by Scaruffi on just some updated good old blues.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Why would anyone want to make a "cosmic-metaphysical interpretation" out of that album? I feel this is a con job by Scaruffi on just some updated good old blues.


This is going to sound terribly cliche but I can assure you it's not a "con job". Trout Mask Replica takes dozens, even hundreds of listens to "decipher/assimilate" and no matter how far one goes, always has more to offer. Like all the most astonishing works of art across history, from Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, to Beethoven's 9th Symphony, to Citizen Kane, to The Wasteland, to The Trial, to Shakespeare, the more one uncovers the more the interpretation widens, the more incredible it becomes and the more impossible it seems that someone actually managed to create such a singular and unfathomable masterpiece the likes of which will never be repeated.

No offense, but if all you really hear is "just some updated old blues", you are missing 95% of what's happening.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

AfterHours said:


> Don Van Vliet, known in musical circles as Captain Beefheart, is one of the most original and important musicians of the twentieth century.
> 
> Van Vliet has forged a musical language that draws upon various recklessly diverse sources, such as the folklore of fairy tales, the abstract paintings of Jackson Pollock, the free association of surrealism, the symphonies of Charles Ives, children nursery rhymes, Van Gogh, free-jazz, and commercial music. But he used the Delta blues, in its most primitive and roughest expression, as the foundation and scaffolding of his artistic construction.
> 
> ...


Thanks a lot AfterHours. It's the first time ever I've read a piece of text on Beefheart that expressed his meaning so eloquently into words. Reading it my admiration for you grew with every sentence. Never mind it was written by Piero Scaruffi after all. Quoting and sharing it with us makes me happy as well!


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Hi Phil, you've got some listening up to do. First Chet Baker, now Captain Beefheart. Nice thing is it'll make you happy for a long, long time


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Why would anyone want to make a "cosmic-metaphysical interpretation" out of that album? I feel this is a con job by Scaruffi on just some updated good old blues.


Also, in case you are misinterpreting, he is referring to the _adjective_ of "cosmic" as in "inconceivably vast". For "metaphysical" he is referring to the incredible number of states of mind the album traverses, which, accumulating from every angle, in every direction and spatial dimension in an unrelenting spasmodic domino effect song-to-song, takes on a sense of overwhelming catharsis, a mental and emotional _fission_, side-stepping, deforming, misplacing and splitting away from the body.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Casebearer said:


> Thanks a lot AfterHours. It's the first time ever I've read a piece of text on Beefheart that expressed his meaning so eloquently into words. Reading it my admiration for you grew with every sentence. Never mind it was written by Piero Scaruffi after all. Quoting and sharing it with us makes me happy as well!


Haha :lol: thank you, I'm a decent writer when I set my mind to it, but I doubt I could've articulated this particular work as has been done here, the merits of which are among the most difficult in all of music to describe adequately and succinctly (even if many similar thoughts are in mind when I listen to it, it's very unlikely I could have articulated them as specifically as Scaruffi has here).


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Magnum Miserium said:


> No it isn't. Polyrhythms aren't complex per se. Polyrhythms _can_ involve very complex rhythmic relationships, but they don't necessarily.


but in that case (and we're talking about just the first measure of a song on a double album) it is, because it's not just a 5 against 7 rhyhm, it's an instrument playing rhythms in 5 against an instrument playing rhyhtms in 7. And I dare you to mention not hundreds, but a single piece in classical music before the twentieth century where you can find something so complex. And that's just one aspect obviously.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> All of them are great. But like Bates and MM is saying (they are basically sort of saying the same thing to me), rock is good even without the complexity. The concept behind the rhythms in Beefheart is not really complex, and it makes an interesting sound. If it was truly complex, like rhythms generated from some algorithm, it woulda probably been less interesting. 3 chord songs can sound magnificent too.


no, the ryhthms in Beefheart's music are REALLY complex. It's the level of complexity than one finds in the third quartet of Elliott Carter, or certain pieces of Ives, or Gruppen and stuff like that. The only composer doing more difficult stuff rhytmically that I can think of is Conlon Nancarrow, who used machines to achieve it.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> Why would anyone want to make a "cosmic-metaphysical interpretation" out of that album? I feel this is a con job by Scaruffi on just some updated good old blues.


one reading this would think that Beefheart's music is something like Eric Clapton or Stevie Ray Vaughan


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

AfterHours said:


> This is going to sound terribly cliche but I can assure you it's not a "con job".


But it is



AfterHours said:


> Trout Mask Replica takes dozens, even hundreds of listens to "decipher/assimilate" and no matter how far one goes, always has more to offer. Like all the most astonishing works of art across history, from Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, to Beethoven's 9th Symphony, to Citizen Kane, to The Wasteland, to The Trial, to Shakespeare, the more one uncovers the more the interpretation widens, the more incredible it becomes and the more impossible it seems that someone actually managed to create such a singular and unfathomable masterpiece the likes of which will never be repeated.


Equating their favorite rock album with Michelangelo and Shakespeare is what people do when even they know they're wrong

Also, Kafka's short stories are better than his novels



norman bates said:


> but in that case (and we're talking about just the first measure of a song on a double album) it is, because it's not just a 5 against 7 rhyhm, it's an instrument playing rhythms in 5 against an instrument playing rhyhtms in 7.


That's the same thing



norman bates said:


> no, the ryhthms in Beefheart's music are REALLY complex. It's the level of complexity than one finds in the third quartet of Elliott Carter [...]


No it isn't



norman bates said:


> or certain pieces of Ives, or Gruppen and stuff like that. The only composer doing more difficult stuff rhytmically that I can think of is Conlon Nancarrow, who used machines to achieve it.


Ives and Nancarrow are more complex than Beefheart but they're not as complex as Carter or Stockhausen either


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

norman bates said:


> one reading this would think that Beefheart's music is something like Eric Clapton or Stevie Ray Vaughan


No one wouldn't, that's why Phil said "updated," but Beefheart's music is closer to Clapton than it is to Elliott Carter


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

AfterHours said:


> Yes, okay, exactly the same thing!


Well how would you know? You'd rather just keep talking than actually listen to some early minimalist music and risk discovering that you haven't got the full story on what exactly the Velvet Underground were


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> This is going to sound terribly cliche but I can assure you it's not a "con job". Trout Mask Replica takes dozens, even hundreds of listens to "decipher/assimilate" and no matter how far one goes, always has more to offer. Like all the most astonishing works of art across history, from Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, to Beethoven's 9th Symphony, to Citizen Kane, to The Wasteland, to The Trial, to Shakespeare, the more one uncovers the more the interpretation widens, the more incredible it becomes and the more impossible it seems that someone actually managed to create such a singular and unfathomable masterpiece the likes of which will never be repeated.
> 
> No offense, but if all you really hear is "just some updated old blues", you are missing 95% of what's happening.


No problem, none taken. We're just discussing. The problem I see with this view is that Scaruffi, and Griel Marcus, who does something similar in his critiques, can make a piece greater than it is, and add loads of more subjectivity where there already is more than enough. If someone was inclined they can even turn Bieber's music into something of cosmic metaphysical proportions. One may laugh and say they would be able to tell the difference between BS and something closer to substantial truth, but personally when I read Scaruffi's critique, I feel it is exactly the first: BS. I just don't have that kind of faith in critics.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Magnum Miserium said:


> That's the same thing


nope, at all. The difference is that a "simple" 5 against 7 means playing 5 notes of equal value over 7 notes of equal value. That it's not the case. For instance the first guitar is playing is playing in 7 a rhyhtm of quavers and semiquavers while the second guitar is playing in 5 a rhyhtm of triplets (adding another layer of rhythmic complexity), and then semiquavers and demisemiquavers.



Magnum Miserium said:


> No it isn't
> 
> Ives and Nancarrow are more complex than Beefheart but they're not as complex as Carter or Stockhausen either


I showed you a contemporary classical composer making a musical analysis with a score of a Beefheart's song. You haven't still made even a simple example on any thing you disagreed (for instance, when you said "Could be any number of things. All that's necessary is that something be done exceptionally well" I've asked for an example without an answer) , you seem just one who wants to win an argument without having enough knowledge to demonstrate what you're talking about. Because just making comments like "no it isn't " instead of making musical examples (AND explaining in detail) shows just that.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> No problem, none taken. We're just discussing. The problem I see with this view is that Scaruffi, and Griel Marcus, who does something similar in his critiques, can make a piece greater than it is, and add loads of more subjectivity where there already is more than enough. If someone was inclined they can even turn Bieber's music into something of cosmic metaphysical proportions. One may laugh and say they would be able to tell the difference between BS and something closer to substantial truth, but personally when I read Scaruffi's critique, I feel it is exactly the first: BS. I just don't have that kind of faith in critics.


Well, I'm not talking about faith at all. I'm talking about giving one of the most in-depth works of art ever created its necessary "due diligence" in order to determine whether the conclusions you (or myself, Scaruffi, Lester Bangs, other users here, etc) are making are reliable/accurate in the first place. Now, of course, you're also not obligated to ever find out if it's even true or not. If you don't like Trout Mask Replica or haven't listened to it very much, little of the analysis/review is likely to make much sense to you. I briefly explained the "cosmic-metaphysical" comment in relation to the album a few posts back, which makes complete sense if it has been assimilated, but probably won't if it hasn't. By the very little you've said about it ("just updated old blues rock", "Scaruffi's critique is BS", "no cosmic-metaphysical interpretation") it does not seem from my vantage point that you have given it very much observation or evaluation in the first place (again, this is not something you're obligated to do, but it is a relevant point in the context of assimilating and discussing such a work). First impressions, or the first handful or whatever, are the least reliable in this particular case. I say this with a tremendous amount of experience on my side (whether that is valuable to you or not), not just with Trout Mask Replica, but with the history of Rock, Jazz, Classical, and Paintings largely at my disposal in assimilating its content and determining its merits (and Film, though that's not as important in this regard), all accumulated over the last 20+ years.

Re: Bieber "metaphysical" ... And I'm sure many teenage girls do, but to compare the two is pretending like there is a similar depth of intelligent analysis. The problem with the comparison is everything Scaruffi has said can be pointed to very clearly and specifically on the album he is talking about. Such an "vast" interpretation of Bieber would be wholly "subjective" (if not delusional), and easily made questionable against a knowledgeable persons view of it.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

norman bates said:


> nope, at all. The difference is that a "simple" 5 against 7 means playing 5 notes of equal value over 7 notes of equal value


No it doesn't. That's like saying a simple 4/4 rhythm is one with 4 notes of equal value



norman bates said:


> That it's not the case. For instance the first guitar is playing is playing in 7 a rhyhtm of quavers and semiquavers while the second guitar is playing in 5 a rhyhtm of triplets (adding another layer of rhythmic complexity), and then semiquavers and demisemiquavers.


So you've established that there are note values with different names in the piece and you know what the names are; that's not analysis (which would involve identifying relationships between the notes)



norman bates said:


> I showed you a contemporary classical composer making a musical analysis with a score of a Beefheart's song. You haven't still made even a simple example on any thing you disagreed (for instance, when you said "Could be any number of things. All that's necessary is that something be done exceptionally well" I've asked for an example without an answer) , you seem just one who wants to win an argument without having enough knowledge to demonstrate what you're talking about. Because just making comments like "no it isn't " instead of making musical examples (AND explaining in detail) shows just that.


No, I know I'm right, I just don't care enough to make the effort to prove it; you on the other hand are pretending to make that kind of effort, but so far you haven't actually explained anything in detail, you've just labeled individual details


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Magnum Miserium said:


> No it doesn't. That's like saying a simple 4/4 rhythm is one with 4 notes of equal value


but that's what YOU are saying! A 4/4 could be used to simply count a super simple 1 2 3 4 or to play syncopations, triplets, groups of 5,7, 11 notes, polyrhtythmic stuff etc. All stuff that adds difficulty to a piece. Now, since you said "Polyrhythms can involve very complex rhythmic relationships, but they don't necessarily." I'm showing you that those rhyhtms are indeed very complex. And by the way, to a european musician even a hemiola is already complex.



Magnum Miserium said:


> So you've established that there are note values with different names in the piece and you know what the names are; that's not analysis (which would involve identifying relationships between the notes)


Let me put it this way: we have a ternary rhythm (triplets) against 5 against 7. That's complex.



Magnum Miserium said:


> No, I know I'm right, I just don't care enough to make the effort to prove it


you care enough to say I'm wrong, so you care. But since you don't know what you're talking about, you can't say anything that goes beyond a childish "no it isn't".
There's an old story about this:


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

norman bates said:


> Let me put it this way: we have a ternary rhythm (triplets) against 5 against 7. That's complex.


Not if that's literally all that's happening (and you haven't gone beyond that); literally any composer can do that much



norman bates said:


> you care enough to say I'm wrong, so you care


I care enough to do something that takes me five seconds every time, which according to you proves I also care enough to do something that would take me an hour



norman bates said:


> But since you don't know what you're talking about


Prove that


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Well how would you know? You'd rather just keep talking than actually listen to some early minimalist music and risk discovering that you haven't got the full story on what exactly the Velvet Underground were


I'm not interested in any further discussion from you. But please knock off spreading this baseless and random assumption or I will be reporting you to the mods. I am familiar with minimalism from its earliest beginnings up to (nearly) present day, and have discussed and ranked several such works very highly for several years.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

AfterHours said:


> I am fimiliar with minimalism from its earliest beginnings up to (nearly) present day, and have discussed and ranked several such works very highly for several years.


Well this could be interesting: name the works


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Well this could be interesting: name the works


I am not interested in any further discussion from you. <-- Please read this


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

What a surprising answer


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Magnum Miserium said:


> I care enough to do something that takes me five seconds every time, which according to you proves I also care enough to do something that would take me an hour


so your idea of a musical conversation is to say to someone else he's wrong without even caring to explain why. And obviously, since the only sense of a similar behaviour is to be annoying, that's called trolling. Have fun with that. Bye


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

norman bates said:


> so your idea of a musical conversation is to say to someone else he's wrong without even caring to explain why.


I've explained what's wrong with what you're doing - categorizing and calling it analysis - several times. Your position seems to be that's not enough, I also have to demonstrate how to do it right


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Magnum Miserium said:


> I've explained what's wrong with what you're doing - categorizing and calling it analysis - several times. Your position seems to be that's not enough, I also have to demonstrate how to do it right


what a surprising answer


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Yes I'm sure it was


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Well, I'm not talking about faith at all. I'm talking about giving one of the most in-depth works of art ever created its necessary "due diligence" in order to determine whether the conclusions you (or myself, Scaruffi, Lester Bangs, other users here, etc) are making are reliable/accurate in the first place. Now, of course, you're also not obligated to ever find out if it's even true or not. If you don't like Trout Mask Replica or haven't listened to it very much, little of the analysis/review is likely to make much sense to you. I briefly explained the "cosmic-metaphysical" comment in relation to the album a few posts back, which makes complete sense if it has been assimilated, but probably won't if it hasn't. By the very little you've said about it ("just updated old blues rock", "Scaruffi's critique is BS", "no cosmic-metaphysical interpretation") it does not seem from my vantage point that you have given it very much observation or evaluation in the first place (again, this is not something you're obligated to do, but it is a relevant point in the context of assimilating and discussing such a work). First impressions, or the first handful or whatever, are the least reliable in this particular case. I say this with a tremendous amount of experience on my side (whether that is valuable to you or not), not just with Trout Mask Replica, but with the history of Rock, Jazz, Classical, and Paintings largely at my disposal in assimilating its content and determining its merits (and Film, though that's not as important in this regard), all accumulated over the last 20+ years.
> 
> Re: Bieber "metaphysical" ... And I'm sure many teenage girls do, but to compare the two is pretending like there is a similar depth of intelligent analysis. The problem with the comparison is everything Scaruffi has said can be pointed to very clearly and specifically on the album he is talking about. Such an "vast" interpretation of Bieber would be wholly "subjective" (if not delusional), and easily made questionable against a knowledgeable persons view of it.


Just to be clear, this is not a personal attack, just stating where I'm coming from, I'm pretty well versed in art in music and poetry, and philosophy. The cosmic metaphysical can't be approached by music. It is the same as that quote by Beethoven that music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy? It is a purely romantic idea, which already passes judgement on itself, since philosophy is a broader thing. Did Beefheart intend to have any of these extra interpretative concepts? There is no interview I've heard that shows anything was ever intended other than to make some music. Plus, the lyrics aren't poetry.

Look at Paul Simon, he wants to invite comparison of being a poet, but does he succeed? Beefheart didn't even try.

Ps. I have a feeling your last statement on Bieber also applies to Beefheart.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Just to be clear, this is not a personal attack, just stating where I'm coming from, I'm pretty well versed in art in music and poetry, and philosophy. The cosmic metaphysical can't be approached by music. It is the same as that quote by Beethoven that music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy? It is a purely romantic idea, which already passes judgement on itself, since philosophy is a broader thing. Did Beefheart intend to have any of these extra interpretative concepts? There is no interview I've heard that shows anything was ever intended other than to make some music. Plus, the lyrics aren't poetry.
> 
> Look at Paul Simon, he wants to invite comparison of being a poet, but does he succeed? Beefheart didn't even try.
> 
> Ps. I have a feeling your last statement on Bieber also applies to Beefheart.


From a few posts back... *Also, in case you are misinterpreting, he is referring to the adjective of "cosmic" as in "inconceivably vast". For "metaphysical" he is referring to the incredible number of states of mind the album traverses, which, accumulating from every angle, in every direction and spatial dimension in an unrelenting spasmodic domino effect song-to-song, takes on a sense of overwhelming catharsis, a mental and emotional fission, side-stepping, deforming, misplacing and splitting away from the body.*

Re: Beefheart's intentions ... We don't know too much about the artist's elicited/verbalized intentions of many great works of history, but we can assimilate them and derive at least an approximation of such from what we see/hear. I'm sure Beefheart has been asked at various times, but he was a rather aloof unsociable fellow so I doubt he would've given much of a response.

Beefheart was very well versed in art history, and was an artistic prodigy from childhood, beginning as early as 3 years old. He was a sculptor, and an acclaimed expressionist painter, his works of which have been exhibited in museums across the world. For Trout Mask Replica, he trained the musicians for 8+ months in order to "reset" the way they played music and get them to grasp the innovation and complexity of the compositions. He was a dominant figure over the proceedings, ensuring to every last detail that his compositions remained intact and that his ideas were fully fledged. Knowing this, one can start looking at the album in such a light: if this was so important to him and it was clearly intentional, maybe there is something happening here that is not just someone messing around with music.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Just to be clear, this is not a personal attack, just stating where I'm coming from, I'm pretty well versed in art in music and poetry, and philosophy.


Fyi, I'm not receiving it as a personal attack so no worries on that point. Discuss away.



Phil loves classical said:


> The cosmic metaphysical can't be approached by music.


This is a very strange statement to me. Music is being produced and elicited by real people, real minds, thoughts and emotions, and can represent just about anything that a mind can come up with.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> From a few posts back... *Also, in case you are misinterpreting, he is referring to the adjective of "cosmic" as in "inconceivably vast". For "metaphysical" he is referring to the incredible number of states of mind the album traverses, which, accumulating from every angle, in every direction and spatial dimension in an unrelenting spasmodic domino effect song-to-song, takes on a sense of overwhelming catharsis, a mental and emotional fission, side-stepping, deforming, misplacing and splitting away from the body.*
> 
> Re: Beefheart's intentions ... We don't know too much about the artist's elicited/verbalized intentions of many great works of history, but we can assimilate them and derive at least an approximation of such from what we see/hear. I'm sure Beefheart has been asked at various times, but he was a rather aloof unsociable fellow so I doubt he would've given much of a response.
> 
> Beefheart was very well versed in art history, and was an artistic prodigy from childhood, beginning as early as 3 years old. He was a sculptor, and an acclaimed expressionist painter, his works of which have been exhibited in museums across the world. For Trout Mask Replica, he trained the musicians for 8+ months in order to "reset" the way they played music and get them to grasp the innovation and complexity of the compositions. He was a dominant figure over the proceedings, ensuring to every last detail that his compositions remained intact and that his ideas were fully fledged. Knowing this, one can start looking at the album in such a light: if this was so important to him and it was clearly intentional, maybe there is something happening here that is not just someone messing around with music.


I recalled the musicians practicing the music for over a year, no? No Beefheart was not messing around with music. I think it's great. Just without all the extra baggage. About the cosmic metaphysical, i don't think I'm misinterpreting. When someone puts those 2 words together, he/she means soemthing serious! The context of the expression doesn't quite fit your interpretation with the allegorical messages. Musical complexity is not really the ingredient to great rock anyway. I've heard some music produced by mathematicsal algortihms, and they are not necessarily that interesting or great.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I recalled the musicians practicing the music for over a year, no? No Beefheart was not messing around with music. I think it's great. Just without all the extra baggage. About the cosmic metaphysical, i don't think I'm misinterpreting. When someone puts those 2 words together, he/she means soemthing serious! The context of the expression doesn't quite fit your interpretation with the allegorical messages. Musical complexity is not really the ingredient to great rock anyway. I've heard some music produced by mathematicsal algortihms, and they are not necessarily that interesting or great.


Re: practice time a year? ... I've heard both counts and I'm not sure which one is accurate, but either way, the same point is made.

Re: the rest ... Suit yourself, we'll just have to agree to disagree :tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

After reading this book, it seems that to at least one person (the author) who was closely associated with him, Captain Beefheart was not always a very nice fellow.









​


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> After reading this book, it seems that to at least one person (the author) who was closely associated with him, Captain Beefheart was not always a very nice fellow.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He was a strange character indeed -actually was suffering from MS for the last twenty years of his life - I have the following bio


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> After reading this book, it seems that to at least one person (the author) who was closely associated with him, Captain Beefheart was not always a very nice fellow.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It wasn't just John French, it's well known that Beefheart was a very unpleasant person with his musicians. I've read that he let them starve, that he read books that teach how to make brainwashing, he beat them and made all sort of abusive things. For what I've read, it would have been easier to be even in the band of Buddy Rich or in a orchestra under Toscanini.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I'm surprised that he & Zappa made it through that tour without killing each other. A good album came out of it, though.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

norman bates said:


> It wasn't just John French, it's well known that Beefheart was a very unpleasant person with his musicians. I've read that he let them starve, that he read books that teach how to make brainwashing, he beat them and made all sort of abusive things. For what I've read, it would have been easier to be even in the band of Buddy Rich or in a orchestra under Toscanini.


I've read that too. It comes with art or any kind of strong conviction often. There is no relation between art and being nice.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Can only stand Safe as Milk and Spotlight Kid etc. Whoever says they listen to Trout Mask Replica whilst idly whistling along because they so 'get' his amazing avant-garde-ness is lying...


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Tallisman said:


> Can only stand Safe as Milk and Spotlight Kid etc. Whoever says they listen to Trout Mask Replica whilst idly whistling along because they so 'get' his amazing avant-garde-ness is lying...


That's what I usually say when someone says he enjoy Mozart! I have never liked Mozart, so why there should be other people pretending they relly like his music? They're obviously lying


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Tallisman said:


> Can only stand Safe as Milk and Spotlight Kid etc. Whoever says they listen to Trout Mask Replica whilst idly whistling along because they so 'get' his amazing avant-garde-ness is lying...


Agreed, as I have said in earlier posts here as Zappa said Trout is a field recording......... I've got a vinyl of Spotlight which i find ok and Safe is good too.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Agreed, as I have said in earlier posts here as Zappa said Trout is a field recording


a field recording of an album for which the musicians have studied the songs for a year


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

norman bates said:


> a field recording of an album for which the musicians have studied the songs for a year


Under false pretenses and brainwashing...........


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Under false pretenses and brainwashing...........


brainwashing yes (but you can't hear that in the music), but false pretenses why?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

norman bates said:


> brainwashing yes (but you can't hear that in the music), but false pretenses why?


They were staving = god knows where all the cash went


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Tallisman said:


> Can only stand Safe as Milk and Spotlight Kid etc. Whoever says they listen to Trout Mask Replica whilst idly whistling along because they so 'get' his amazing avant-garde-ness is lying...


Okay then... 

I think its strange when a person that hasn't assimilated a particularly challenging work of art automatically assumes that those who _have_ done so, that those who _have_ put in the time and effort, _must_ be "lying" -- after all if _they_ haven't bothered to give it its necessary time, attention and effort, there is _no way_ anyone else possibly could have accomplished such a feat! 

In a sense, Trout Mask Replica is the latter half of the 20th century's "Rite of Spring", except it goes much further with its art than Stravinsky's masterpiece did. As with Rite of Spring initially, Trout Mask Replica is/was very divisive (especially until the late 70's when its influence became increasingly prominent and it beckoned re-evaluation), only to become quite acclaimed as more and more people gave it the requisite time and effort to assimilate it. So its not a surprise to see such bewilderment and I get that there are at least as many people that, when they listen to it, don't understand what is going on and/or just flat-out hate it, as there are those that understand it, that are able to get their bearings enough to see the revolution taking place, and are left in a state of awe that very few works of art can match.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> They were staving = god knows where all the cash went


actually even if Beefheart wasn't a person to admire I must be said that there wasn't a lot of cash in the first place for what I know. But still even if he was super rich it does not have a lot to do with the album. A lot of great musicians and artists did a lot of not so great things but that doesn't matter when one has to evaluate the music.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Trout Mask Replica is crap simple...............


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Trout Mask Replica is crap simple...............


Different points of view.
Onestly it's not an album I appreciated for a long time. I liked immediately Safe as milf, even because it's definitely more conventional, but I didn't like TMR (and a lot of other albums after it). Like, at all. 
Then something clicked, and now I like it much more than Safe as milk (which is a good album in any case). I've read a lot of people had a similar experience. Matt Groening comes to mind. He thought it was a pile of crap, and after a while it becamed one of his favorite albums ever. 
You or Tallisman could believe it's just a pose obviously, but I can say in all onesty it's not like this. I like avantgarde stuff and I hate or I don't know what to do with a lot of other advantarde stuff. And I love a lot of simple pop and folk music (and I don't like a lot of pop music obviously).
And it's not either a matter of historical importance or influence, it's just an album full of playful music, and it creates an unusual and original soundworld, that is a great thing for me.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

^ I call it brainwahing of the listener


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

norman bates said:


> That's what I usually say when someone says he enjoy Mozart! I have never liked Mozart, so why there should be other people pretending they relly like his music? They're obviously lying


Mother thinks you're spending too much time on this forum, Norman.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> ^ I call it brainwahing of the listener


I don't mind to being brainwashed like guys like Frank Zappa or Matt Groening. Good company.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Tallisman said:


> Mother thinks you're spending too much time on this forum, Norman.


Mother thinks you should learn to be less hateful Tallisman, or you will have no friends.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

norman bates said:


> I don't mind to being brainwashed like guys like Frank Zappa or Matt Groening. Good company.


Zappa yes but from the Captain No


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Trout Mask Replica is crap simple...............


Interesting analysis to present your view and convince norman (or anyone else) otherwise 

Honestly, it doesn't even seem like you guys (Eddie, Tallisman) have listened to the album, so I'm not sure why you should be taken seriously on the matter. RU kidding, indeed :lol:

You're both conversing with people who have extensive experience with the work, not charlatans who've listened to the first few tracks and called it the best album ever made to be "contrarian".

Personally, I've listened to the album some 200+ times (rough estimate) and remember thinking it was some sort of joke the very first time, which was almost 20 years ago -- and then for several subsequent listens after that. Over that time I've also assimilated the scope of history in regards to (most of the significant works of + unfortunately many less significant works too) Rock, Jazz, Classical, Film and Paintings. Now (and for the last 12 years), I consider Trout Mask Replica the greatest Rock album of all time, and among the greatest works of art ever created -- period.

If you want to 'get' Trout Mask Replica, perhaps the best way to get there (in addition to 20th century Classical which I won't cover here as you're likely familiar enough with it), would be evaluating the paintings of Picasso (Guernica especially, also his most seminal cubist works), the wartime expressionist paintings of George Grosz and Otto Dix, Van Gogh (especially those which "deform" his body/face and environments into unusual colors, angles/dimensions and shapes) and perhaps some of Pollack's famous works. I would recommend assimilating films such as those by Kusturica (Underground, especially, Black Cat White Cat also), Peckinpah (Wild Bunch), backed by viewing early Soviet & German Expressionist films for their creative use of montage and surrealism and "free form-esque" editing and action (Metropolis, Battleship Potemkin), Jazz artists such as Eric Dolphy (Out to Lunch), Albert Ayler (Spritual Unity, Witches and Devils) Anthony Braxton (Saxophone Improvisations Series F, For Alto...), Cecil Taylor (Unit Structures, Conquistador), Ornette Coleman (Free Jazz, Shape of Jazz to Come, Ornette!), Sam Rivers (Streams, Dimensions and Extensions). Rock artists such as Pere Ubu, Frank Zappa, Tom Waits and The Pop Group can make for easier stepping stones into the world of Trout Mask Replica, not to mention Beefhearts other albums. You may not even "need" all of that, but instead of a chore, Trout Mask Replica should be quite easy to understand following one's assimilation of those.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

AfterHours said:


> Interesting analysis to present your view and convince norman (or anyone else) otherwise
> 
> Honestly, it doesn't even seem like you guys (Eddie, Tallisman) have listened to the album, so I'm not sure why you should be taken seriously on the matter. RU kidding, indeed :lol:
> 
> ...


Ive had the album for 10 years on CD and have tried many times but can never get thru a sitting of it - its crap but then I'm not too keen on Beefys tracks on Bongo either


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Ive had the album for 10 years on CD and have tried many times but can never get thru a sitting of it - its crap but then I'm not too keen on Beefys tracks on Bongo either


Good "discussing" this with you :tiphat:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

AfterHours said:


> Good "discussing" this with you :tiphat:


Great brushoff! Like "Don't call me. I'll call you!!" :lol::lol:


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

hpowders said:


> Great brushoff! Like "Don't call me. I'll call you!!" :lol::lol:


Thanks I did my best! :lol:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> In a sense, Trout Mask Replica is the latter half of the 20th century's "Rite of Spring", except it goes much further with its art than Stravinsky's masterpiece did. As with Rite of Spring initially, Trout Mask Replica is/was very divisive (especially until the late 70's when


I think Trout Mask Replica is a masterpiece of blues rock. The best description for it may be avant-garde delta blues/rock. But as in the over-intellectualizing thread, critics tend to exaggerate stuff. Sure, Beefheart was a fan of Ives, Jazz. And they even influenced and helped in the evolution of his music. But to there is really no need to bring up all of these influences, because every composer is somehow influenced by past concepts, etc. Whether they know it or not. And it is not necessary to say I hear Ives in Trout Mask, where the connection is negligible. It has a powerful sound, ugly or beautiful, take your pick. Do I hear Picasso in his music, definitely not. You can say the music is angular like Picasso's cubism, but so is a lot more of modern classical, which I think fits the picture better.

The Rite of Spring was a revolutionary piece, I would say the most, in terms of influence, and an early avant garde masterpiece. Avant garde can only stay so original and revolutionary for so long, and so many times. There is no way I would compare Trout Mask with Rite of Spring. Imagine the shift from postRomantic when Rite of Spring was written. By the late 60's when Trout Mask was written, you already have avant gardists like Penderecki, Ligeti, let alone avant garde Jazz like Dolphy, Coltrane, Mingus, and the Beatles. Sorry to Beatles haters, but they were the first Rock Avant Gardists. With the Beach Boys just behind.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

AfterHours said:


> Thanks I did my best! :lol:


He's good natured. Others may have responded with a little more....ummm....volatility! :lol::lol:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think Trout Mask Replica is a masterpiece of blues rock. The best description for it may be avant-garde delta blues/rock. But as in the over-intellectualizing thread, critics tend to exaggerate stuff. Sure, Beefheart was a fan of Ives, Jazz. And they even influenced and helped in the evolution of his music. But to there is really no need to bring up all of these influences, because every composer is somehow influenced by past concepts, etc. Whether they know it or not. And it is not necessary to say I hear Ives in Trout Mask, where the connection is negligible. It has a powerful sound, ugly or beautiful, take your pick. Do I hear Picasso in his music, definitely not. You can say the music is angular like Picasso's cubism, but so is a lot more of modern classical, which I think fits the picture better.
> 
> The Rite of Spring was a revolutionary piece, I would say the most, in terms of influence, and an early avant garde masterpiece. Avant garde can only stay so original and revolutionary for so long, and so many times. There is no way I would compare Trout Mask with Rite of Spring. Imagine the shift from postRomantic when Rite of Spring was written. By the late 60's when Trout Mask was written, you already have avant gardists like Penderecki, Ligeti, let alone avant garde Jazz like Dolphy, Coltrane, Mingus, and the Beatles. Sorry to Beatles haters, but they were the first Rock Avant Gardists. With the Beach Boys just behind.


Zappa was the first rock Avant Gardists, actually there were others too but not including the Beatles - they copied others


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Ive had the album for 10 years on CD and have tried many times but can never get thru a sitting of it - its crap but then I'm not too keen on Beefys tracks on Bongo either


I read that as "Ives" had the album....


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

hpowders said:


> I read that as "Ives" had the album....


Yeah, I borrowed it from him and never gave it back Charles was not happy:lol:


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think Trout Mask Replica is a masterpiece of blues rock. The best description for it may be avant-garde delta blues/rock. But as in the over-intellectualizing thread, critics tend to exaggerate stuff. Sure, Beefheart was a fan of Ives, Jazz. And they even influenced and helped in the evolution of his music. But to there is really no need to bring up all of these influences, because every composer is somehow influenced by past concepts, etc. Whether they know it or not. And it is not necessary to say I hear Ives in Trout Mask, where the connection is negligible. It has a powerful sound, ugly or beautiful, take your pick. Do I hear Picasso in his music, definitely not. You can say the music is angular like Picasso's cubism, but so is a lot more of modern classical, which I think fits the picture better.
> 
> The Rite of Spring was a revolutionary piece, I would say the most, in terms of influence, and an early avant garde masterpiece. Avant garde can only stay so original and revolutionary for so long, and so many times. There is no way I would compare Trout Mask with Rite of Spring. Imagine the shift from postRomantic when Rite of Spring was written. By the late 60's when Trout Mask was written, you already have avant gardists like Penderecki, Ligeti, let alone avant garde Jazz like Dolphy, Coltrane, Mingus, and the Beatles. Sorry to Beatles haters, but they were the first Rock Avant Gardists. With the Beach Boys just behind.


Ummm ... Sorry, no way to address your post without blasting it apart and probably causing animosity. So I'm not going to take this very far. The Beatles we're not avant-garde at all, especially when they're contemporaries were the likes of Sun Ra, John Coltrane, Carla Bley, Ornette Coleman, Sam Rivers, The Velvet Underground, Captain Beefheart, Frank Zappa, Red Crayola, etc. You should assimilate the visual art, the films I mentioned, and the music I mentioned, before arguing my points -- all of which are applicable to what I posted.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Yeah, I borrowed it from him and never gave it back Charles was not happy:lol:


I thought he would make you sign a contract to insure he got it back.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Sure, Beefheart was a fan of Ives, Jazz. And they even influenced and helped in the evolution of his music. But to there is really no need to bring up all of these influences


I did not bring up Ives or modern era Classical. I also was not bringing up "influences" necessarily. If you read my post, I was bringing up works of art from different fields that would assist someone in assimilating Trout Mask Replica. Obviously works, like for instance, Underground (1995) and Black Cat White Cat (1998), The Pop Group, Pere Ubu (each late 70's), Tom Waits (late 70s to present) did not influence Captain Beefheart, and I do not think it was influenced by Battleship Potemkin or Metropolis either. Even in the case of that which did influence it (Ives, Howlin Wolf, Ornette Coleman, Eric Dolphy, Expressionist/Surrealist/Cubist paintings, Van Gogh, Delta blues...), the album so thoroughly departs from the rest of music and art and transcends its influences so dramatically that it is not a case of derivation; it is a case of taking such music/art into an entirely new emotional, conceptual and compositional spectrum, the likes of which had never happened before, and is still being reckoned with to this day, 50 years after the fact. There is nothing before Trout Mask Replica like Trout Mask Replica, and there has been nothing after the fact either, except various spurts and elements among his own work that followed (particularly Lick My Decals Off Baby, even if it falls quite a bit short emotionally/conceptually, proof that such a work can't be accomplished superficially, without a lot of care and detail into the compositions and recording process). Trout Mask Replica is, without question the most original and innovative "Rock" album ever. It is one of the most original works of art ever conceived and, overall, is much more comprehensively startling than Rite of Spring, especially because nothing since, outside of his own work, has even _been able to_ sound like it -- though you will find many artists strongly influenced by it and using various remnants from it here and there.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Zappa was the first rock Avant Gardists, actually there were others too but not including the Beatles - they copied others


Wrong. (Rhetorical question: Who'd they copy "Tomorrow Never Knows" from?)

Anyway, if we're counting "Pet Sounds," as I assume Phil is, then obviously Zappa isn't first. (For the Beatles to be avant garde before the Beach Boys, I guess Phil is counting "Rubber Soul" too.)


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Piero Scaruffi said:


> The work is so innovative and complex as to be nearly indecipherable. The rhythm section sounds so polyrhythmic that all rhythm is lost. The singing , vaguely interested in music, travels within alien universes. The guitar acts as atonal contracanto. The counterpoint of the ensemble is something halfway between the orchestral chaos of Charles Ives and the audacity of John Cage. The chaotic but rational improvisation is reminiscent of the frenetic geometry of Ornette Coleman, who in turn was influenced by Van Vliet. The heterogeneous meter that Van Vliet produces are to melody what the free poetry of the 1900's are to rhyme. But free-jazz and avant garde music are only alibis, pretexts to freely vent the leader's anarchical compulsions. The album is by all accounts an anthology of chaos in all its musical forms. For as deeply varied as they are from one another, these twenty-eight cuts are many versions of the same scene of devastation. Trout Mask Replica is above all a collage of abstract paintings, each different from the other in color, intensity and contrast, yet they're all homogeneous in their "abstraction".


The name "Ives" caught my eye while I was looking for something else - oh God, this is even dumber than I thought it would be


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think Trout Mask Replica is a masterpiece of blues rock. The best description for it may be avant-garde delta blues/rock.


I do agree with this part well enough, though it's doing much more than blues rock, which is what I assume you mean by "avant-garde delta blues rock".



Phil loves classical said:


> By the late 60's when Trout Mask was written, you already have avant gardists like Penderecki, Ligeti, let alone avant garde Jazz like Dolphy, Coltrane, Mingus...


This is true that these came before, however works by these artists don't sound like TMR (except in some superficial sound qualities) and vice versa. Dolphy's Out to Lunch is the only one that is even starting to get in the ballpark.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

hpowders said:


> He's good natured. Others may have responded with a little more....ummm....volatility! :lol::lol:


Woohoo, I win! :tiphat:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Ummm ... Sorry, no way to address your post without blasting it apart and probably causing animosity. So I'm not going to take this very far. The Beatles we're not avant-garde at all, especially when they're contemporaries were the likes of Sun Ra, John Coltrane, Carla Bley, Ornette Coleman, Sam Rivers, The Velvet Underground, Captain Beefheart, Frank Zappa, Red Crayola, etc. You should assimilate the visual art, the films I mentioned, and the music I mentioned, before arguing my points -- all of which are applicable to what I posted.


Tomorrow Never Knows is the first Avant Garde Rock song. Zappa's Freak Out was not quite in the avante garde, nor was Pet Sounds.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> I did not bring up Ives or modern era Classical. I also was not bringing up "influences" necessarily. If you read my post, I was bringing up works of art from different fields that would assist someone in assimilating Trout Mask Replica. Obviously works, like for instance, Underground (1995) and Black Cat White Cat (1998), The Pop Group, Pere Ubu (each late 70's), Tom Waits (late 70s to present) did not influence Captain Beefheart, and I do not think it was influenced by Battleship Potemkin or Metropolis either. Even in the case of that which did influence it (Ives, Howlin Wolf, Ornette Coleman, Eric Dolphy, Expressionist/Surrealist/Cubist paintings, Van Gogh, Delta blues...), the album so thoroughly departs from the rest of music and art and transcends its influences so dramatically that it is not a case of derivation; it is a case of taking such music/art into an entirely new emotional, conceptual and compositional spectrum, the likes of which had never happened before, and is still being reckoned with to this day, 50 years after the fact. There is nothing before Trout Mask Replica like Trout Mask Replica, and there has been nothing after the fact either, except various spurts and elements among his own work that followed (particularly Lick My Decals Off Baby, even if it falls quite a bit short emotionally/conceptually, proof that such a work can't be accomplished superficially, without a lot of care and detail into the compositions and recording process). Trout Mask Replica is, without question the most original and innovative "Rock" album ever. It is one of the most original works of art ever conceived and, overall, is much more comprehensively startling than Rite of Spring, especially because nothing since, outside of his own work, has even _been able to_ sound like it -- though you will find many artists strongly influenced by it and using various remnants from it here and there.


My argument was more directed at Scaruffi, who also mentioned Picasso, etc. You can take your last sentence and also apply it to The Rite of Spring and many other works. How startling is Trout Mask Replica? Polyrhythms and atonality had been around a long time already, same with avant garde, and psychedelic music with the extreme expressionism. Trout Mask is a collection of songs with little development on a compositional level. The Rite of Spring transforms over the course of the work, with development of themes. To elevate Trout Mask to a level of among the greatest art of Mankind is to underestimate the qualities of MANY other masterpieces.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Tomorrow Never Knows is the first Avant Garde song. Zappa's Freak Out was not quite in the avante garde, nor was Pet Sounds.


Just being "first" is not particularly important to me, however..

No, in terms of experimental songs, it was preceded by much of The Velvet Underground and Nico, for instance, and also Dylan's forays into folk-rock and psychedelia (Mr Tambourine Man, Like a Rolling Stone), for example. In terms of its particular content, it is one of The Beatles most successful works, but fundamentally a more "accessible/catchy/user friendly" implementation of Stockhausen's experiments a decade earlier. In all cases where The Beatles experimented, they did so in a tamer, more accessible fashion than those that they were drawing from. This doesn't mean such songs aren't great in their own right, but they were certainly no longer experimental considering their predecessors (or at least, less so than most of their fans seem to think).


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Tomorrow Never Knows is the first Avant Garde Rock song. Zappa's Freak Out was not quite in the avante garde, nor was Pet Sounds.


Freak Out is way more experimental than 2 minutes of Tomorrow Never Knows. Give me a break! :lol:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Just being "first" is not particularly important to me, however..
> 
> No, in terms of experimental songs, it was preceded by much of The Velvet Underground and Nico, for instance, and also Dylan's forays into folk-rock and psychedelia (Mr Tambourine Man, Like a Rolling Stone), for example. In terms of its particular content, it is one of The Beatles most successful works, but fundamentally a more "accessible/catchy/user friendly" implementation of Stockhausen's experiments a decade earlier. In all cases where The Beatles experimented, they did so in a tamer, more accessible fashion than those that they were drawing from. This doesn't mean such songs aren't great in their own right, but they were certainly no longer experimental considering their predecessors (or at least, less so than most of their fans seem to think).


You might want to check up on the chronology of The Velvet Underground in relation to the Beatles.  Any listener can make their own judgement of Freak Out vs. tomorrow Never Knows. I'm staisifed to leave it at that


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> My argument was more directed at Scaruffi, who also mentioned Picasso, etc. You can take your last sentence and also apply it to The Rite of Spring and many other works. How startling is Trout Mask Replica? Polyrhythms and atonality had been around a long time already, same with avant garde, and psychedelic music with the extreme expressionism. Trout Mask is a collection of songs with little development on a compositional level. The Rite of Spring transforms over the course of the work, with development of themes. To elevate Trout Mask to a level of among the greatest art of Mankind is to underestimate the qualities of MANY other masterpieces.


Yes, but you're dismissing/ignoring/underestimating the degree and extremes and confluence of styles, applications and innovations Trout Mask Replica accomplished. Many 20th century Classical works drew from the same small handful of wells of inspiration (not to discount them, as I consider many among the greatest works of music ever composed), with subtle variations and theories between them. Despite all that preceded it, Trout Mask Replica sounds almost _nothing_ like any of them (except very superficially), completely shattering all preconceived notions of what Rock music, or music, was, up to that time. And to this day is an utterly startling work that hasn't even come close to being duplicated, that many serious music listeners and critics are still trying to come to terms with, 50 years after the fact.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

AfterHours said:


> Freak Out is way more experimental than 2 minutes of Tomorrow Never Knows. Give me a break! :lol:


Yeah, come on:lol:, I'm with Afterhours on this one- the Beatles looked towards guys like Zappa to show them the way.....


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> You might want to check up on the chronology of The Velvet Underground in relation to the Beatles.  Any listener can make their own judgement of Freak Out vs. tomorrow Never Knows. I'm staisifed to leave it at that


Again, this is not important to me really. It's who did it the best, to the most extraordinary, most accomplished ends that matters. Otherwise, "the first symphony is better than Beethoven's 9th" and what-have-you...

But: http://olivier.landemaine.free.fr/vu/andsoon/studio/studio.html


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Again, this is not important to me really. It's who did it the best, to the most extraordinary, most accomplished ends that matters. Otherwise, "the first symphony is better than Beethoven's 9th" and what-have-you...
> 
> But: http://olivier.landemaine.free.fr/vu/andsoon/studio/studio.html


Same here, and in my opinion Strawberry Fields is the most extraordinary. Check out Brian Wilson's reaction:

https://medium.com/cuepoint/how-the...brian-wilson-a-nervous-breakdown-4b3939c4e0e5


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Just being "first" is not particularly important to me, however..
> 
> No, in terms of experimental songs, it was preceded by much of The Velvet Underground and Nico, for instance, and also Dylan's forays into folk-rock and psychedelia (Mr Tambourine Man, Like a Rolling Stone), for example. In terms of its particular content, it is one of The Beatles most successful works, but fundamentally a more "accessible/catchy/user friendly" implementation of Stockhausen's experiments a decade earlier. In all cases where The Beatles experimented, they did so in a tamer, more accessible fashion than those that they were drawing from. This doesn't mean such songs aren't great in their own right, but they were certainly no longer experimental considering their predecessors (or at least, less so than most of their fans seem to think).


Actually I believe their rock idol and commercial success may have gotten in the way of the Beatles' reputation as serious musicians. Their music make no compromises, and they just had a great gift of melody.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Actually I believe their rock idol and commercial success may have gotten in the way of the Beatles' reputation as serious musicians. Their music make no compromises, and they just had a great gift of melody.


They were no doubt proficient at writing melodies. Where I think they are lacking is in terms of emotional/conceptual depth. Most of their songs are one-dimensional relays (or little more than that) of "enthusiasm/cheerfulness", of "falling in love", etc. Some of their later work (particularly portions of The White Album and Magical Mystery Tour, on Sgt Pepper and Abbey Rd) did start to go farther than this.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Same here, and in my opinion Strawberry Fields is the most extraordinary. Check out Brian Wilson's reaction:
> 
> https://medium.com/cuepoint/how-the...brian-wilson-a-nervous-breakdown-4b3939c4e0e5


Strawberry Fields is definitely among their greatest achievements.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> Tomorrow Never Knows is the first Avant Garde Rock song. Zappa's Freak Out was not quite in the avante garde, nor was Pet Sounds.


1964





about Freak out, songs like Help I'm a rock or Who are the brain police were certainly quite experimental for the time (at least as much as if not more than Tomorrow never knows, even if I prefer the beatles song that is certainly more catchy).


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

AfterHours said:


> Again, this is not important to me really. It's who did it the best, to the most extraordinary, most accomplished ends that matters.


You think "Trout Mask Replica" is on the same level as "The Rite of Spring"



AfterHours said:


> But: http://olivier.landemaine.free.fr/vu/andsoon/studio/studio.html


"But" the fact that Zappa and the Mothers and the Velvet Underground _separately_ recorded music that people in this thread are calling "avant garde," before either band had heard anything by the other, and the fact that the Beatles recorded "Tomorrow Never Knows" before they'd heard anything by either of those bands - so that's three groups going "avant garde" independently - proves that going avant garde in 1965-6 was a pretty obvious thing for an ambitious rock band to do.



EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Yeah, come on:lol:, I'm with Afterhours on this one- the Beatles looked towards guys like Zappa to show them the way.....


Okay then you're both wrong. The Beatles recorded that track before "Freak Out" was released.



norman bates said:


> 1964
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?
> v=7y8fyIVhqXI


1963


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

norman bates said:


> 1964
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ticket to Ride, the Word, experimental, yes. But it is not avante garde rock, or the Who or Zappa at the time. I don't see how anyone can define anything before the Beatles Tomorrow never Knows in that term. The link you sent on John Cale says it is c. 1964, but the date is undetermined. MM's links are definite precursors.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> They were no doubt proficient at writing melodies. Where I think they are lacking is in terms of emotional/conceptual depth. Most of their songs are one-dimensional relays (or little more than that) of "enthusiasm/cheerfulness", of "falling in love", etc. Some of their later work (particularly portions of The White Album and Magical Mystery Tour, on Sgt Pepper and Abbey Rd) did start to go farther than this.


Their earlier albums are kind of fluffy yes. But by the later repertoire they became a great band. Greatness is not measured by longevity. And you can't measure a band by the average quality of their output.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> Ticket to Ride, the Word, experimental, yes. But it is not avante garde rock, or the Who or Zappa at the time. I don't see how anyone can define anything before the Beatles Tomorrow never Knows in that term. The link you sent on John Cale says it is c. 1964, but the date is undetermined. MM's links are definite precursors.


the date is 1964, not only according to that video but to a lot of other sources.
Anyway you probably don't remember well those pieces I've mentioned, because this stuff is a lot more out than Tommorrow never knows


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> The link you sent on John Cale says it is c. 1964, but the date is undetermined. MM's links are definite precursors.


To be clear, Cale is playing in some of those Theater of Eternal Music recordings.

This is itself interesting - a certain kind of Velvet Underground fan will know an obscure recording Cale made by himself in 1964, but recordings he participated in a year earlier with Young, Conrad, and Jennings - NO! TOO DANGEROUS! THAR BE MONSTERS!


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Magnum Miserium said:


> To be clear, Cale is playing in some of those Theater of Eternal Music recordings.
> 
> This is itself interesting - a certain kind of Velvet Underground fan will know an obscure recording Cale made by himself in 1964, but recordings he participated in a year earlier with Young, Conrad, and Jennings - NO! TOO DANGEROUS! THAR BE MONSTERS!


are you talking of me?
I knew already that stuff (even if your first link says 1965), but I wasn't considering simply because I tend to consider that stuff outside the rock world, even if it's hard to make a clear distinction with that kind of music.
By the way, I don't even know what could be considered the first "avantgarde" rock piece, first of all because I could ignore a lot of stuff, and also because the idea of avantgarde is quite confused in itself. One could argue that when the first rock'n'roll pieces, being something unheard before were avantgarde.
And we're even ignoring the infuences. For instance Bo Diddley in 1960 had already the kind of wild sound used by the Velvet undergound on their albums


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

norman bates said:


> are you talking of me?


I don't know if what I said applies to you or not



norman bates said:


> even if your first link says 1965


Oops! I was so sure "Day of Niagara" was from 1963 that I didn't even check. (Apparently it WAS not only released but recorded in 1965.) My mistake! Doesn't matter, some of the 1963 recordings that ended up in the "Fire Is a Mirror" broadcast are better anyway



norman bates said:


> [...] it's hard to make a clear distinction with that kind of music


Indeed


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

norman bates said:


> the date is 1964, not only according to that video but to a lot of other sources.
> Anyway you probably don't remember well those pieces I've mentioned, because this stuff is a lot more out than Tommorrow never knows


I would say avant garde is a large departure in song arrangements and expression for Rock. Freak out is pretty out there in expression agree, but conventional in song arrangements. If that Cale piece is from '64, then sure it is the first avant garde rock sketch, but not full fleshed out rock song.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Their earlier albums are kind of fluffy yes. But by the later repertoire they became a great band.


I mean, it depends on how one defines "great". Relative to what? Sgt Pepper and Abbey Rd are fine albums but which songs from their later repertoire exhibit as much or even approach the emotional/conceptual depth of any of the best compositions from the "great" music artists of history? Such as Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Schubert, Shostakovich, Wagner, Mahler... (if you disagree with one or more of those, just choose those you DO agree with as points of comparison) ...



Phil loves classical said:


> Greatness is not measured by longevity. And you can't measure a band by the average quality of their output.




I would detail the fundamental definition of a criteria for "greatness" a bit differently, but surely these are generally pretty reliable indications of such?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

^ and also remember that Zappa had been recording since the early 60's pre Mothers


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> I mean, it depends on how one defines "great". Relative to what? Sgt Pepper and Abbey Rd are fine albums but which songs from their later repertoire exhibit as much or even approach the emotional/conceptual depth of any of the best compositions from the "great" music artists of history? Such as Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Schubert, Shostakovich, Wagner, Mahler... (if you disagree with one or more of those, just choose those you DO agree with as points of comparison) ...
> 
> 
> 
> I would detail the fundamental definition of a criteria for "greatness" a bit differently, but surely these are generally pretty reliable indications of such?


Actually I'm not the biggest fan of those 2 albums. I think revolver was more revolutionary and more consistent better than those 2. Strawberry fields, I am the Walrus, fool on the hill, day in the life. lucy in the skies. Especially the first as I keep saying is to me the best song of all popular music. Very creative areangements, changing. Between major minor keys, instrumental development, timbre/sonic impact. The arrangments dense and intricate. It is as meticulously constructed as anything Brahms composed in my view. I would say those lyrics are directly metaphysical, and the arrangements go from a sweet dream to a sort of nightmare. The harmonies are not as advanced as bartok,etc. But then no popular music is. Considering the rest it still overall achieves as great heights in music as anything I know. Complexity is not the more important criteria, but meticulaously constructed intricacy and inspiration is to me.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

AfterHours said:


> I would detail the fundamental definition of a criteria for "greatness" a bit differently, but surely these are generally pretty reliable indications of such?


Only if you think Walter Scott is a better writer than Wordsworth. In other words, no, of course they're not


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Actually I'm not the biggest fan of those 2 albums. I think revolver was more revolutionary and more consistent better than those 2. Strawberry fields, I am the Walrus, fool on the hill, day in the life. lucy in the skies. Especially the first as I keep saying is to me the best song of all popular music. Very creative areangements, changing. Between major minor keys, instrumental development, timbre/sonic impact. The arrangments dense and intricate. It is as meticulously constructed as anything Brahms composed in my view. I would say those lyrics are directly metaphysical, and the arrangements go from a sweet dream to a sort of nightmare. The harmonies are not as advanced as bartok,etc. But then no popular music is. Considering the rest it still overall achieves as great heights in music as anything I know. Complexity is not the more important criteria, but meticulaously constructed intricacy and inspiration is to me.




I wrote a response but then decided to delete it because I don't hate you like its shock and denouncement of your claims would have made it seem. So I'll keep this short. I have to move on from discussing how The Beatles songs are "as meticulously constructed as anything Brahms composed". It's not worth talking about. I just can't be bothered to waste my time having conversations that are so ridiculous. Sorry.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

AfterHours said:


> I have to move on from discussing how The Beatles songs are "as meticulously constructed as anything Brahms composed". It's not worth talking about. I just can't be bothered to waste my time having conversations that are so ridiculous. Sorry.





AfterHours said:


> In a sense, Trout Mask Replica is the latter half of the 20th century's "Rite of Spring", except it goes much further with its art than Stravinsky's masterpiece did.


Paired without comment


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

George Martin deserves a lot of credit for bring orchestrations into pop music particularly his work with the Beatles, without him they would have been just another Mersey beat band


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> George Martin deserves a lot of credit for bring orchestrations into pop music particularly his work with the Beatles, without him they would have been just another Mersey beat band


1. No

2. Without the Beatles George Martin would have been the producer of "Beyond the Fringe"

3. Martin can't deserve any credit for "bring orchestrations into pop music" because orchestration was of course already all over pop music; what Martin did was introduce a more neoclassical style of orchestration

4. There is no orchestration on the Beatles' first 4 albums. With the exception of "Yesterday" (which strictly speaking isn't orchestration but a string quartet arrangement) there's no orchestration on the Beatles' first _6 _albums


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Magnum Miserium said:


> 1. No
> 
> 2. Without the Beatles George Martin would have been the producer of "Beyond the Fringe"
> 
> ...


You play it your way and I'll play it mine- the first four Beatles albums were rubbish anyway


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> You play it your way and I'll play it mine-


Well on #3 you're just easily demonstrably wrong



EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> the first four Beatles albums were rubbish anyway


No they're great


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Well on #3 you're just easily demonstrably wrong
> 
> No they're great


All a matter of opinion lets have a poll


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Paired without comment


Yeah, I think that provides an interesting illustration. The fact is the Beatles best music is very highly composed, every sound is precise and not out of place. Someone with a strong grasp of musical concepts should be able to hear that. Scaruffi is not actually very musically educated person. He is a historian, and his background is in science. That is why his review of Trout Mask does not go into actual musical analysis, nor his attack on the Beatles. Bernstein and Howard Goodall are actually accomplished composers and Goodall gave a great analysis of the Beatles music, which I only saw recently. Goodall actually thinks the big 3 in all of music is Bach, Handel, and the Beatles! 




i already gave a quick analysis of Strawberry Fields. I didn't even get into polyrhythms, but right near the beginning you already have an example with the drum entry. The whole song is in fact orchestrated with all its parts, every sound has its place. So I gladly stand by my claim it is as meticulously composed as Brahms' works.

Trout Mask on the other hand have independently rhythms and even keys played on different instruments. Some would say this is complex, but the idea is somewhat arbitrary. How were the keys and time signatures selected? The same could have been achieved with a large variance in keys and time. A good thoroughly composed piece of music (art in general) has to have an inevitability, that replacing a part would damage the composition, which is absent in this case. It does have an interesting sound, and even though the parts are forced together, rather than really functioning as a whole, it does provide an overall statement, and impact. But I would say the good songs are far in between: Frownland, Moonlight on Vermont are definite highlights. THe ingenuity can't last.

Ther is no comparing Trout Mask with the Rite of Spring. In musical merits, the Rite of Spring has much more purpose, thematic development, harmonic organization, rhythmic interest, real complexity and sonority.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Rite of Spring is astonishing in its own right and I rank it very highly in musical history. But your points about TMR are mostly a matter of opinion, most of which look very unfounded to someone that has actually assimilated the work, which no one here that is arguing against its merits appears to have done to any worthwhile extent at all (nor are you obligated to do so past your own actual interest in such). 

You guys can keep "discussing" Trout Mask Replica without actually assimilating it if you want. You're free to think whatever you want about it for the rest of your lives -- or however long you choose to do so. But I've lost interest because of the high probability that you don't appear to have assimilated that which you are "arguing" about.

The idea that The Beatles even approached the meticulous depth of structure, emotions, concepts of Brahms' compositions is completely and utterly absurd, and doesn't need discussion for anyone even remotely familiar with either of these artists' works.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

^I definitely don't want to be assimilated, seeing what happened to Capt. Pickard on Star Trek was scary enough for me


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Rite of Spring is astonishing in its own right and I rank it very highly in musical history. But your points about TMR are mostly a matter of opinion, most of which look very unfounded to someone that has actually assimilated the work, which no one here that is arguing against its merits appears to have done to any worthwhile extent at all (nor are you obligated to do so past your own actual interest in such).
> 
> You guys can keep "discussing" Trout Mask Replica without actually assimilating it if you want. You're free to think whatever you want about it for the rest of your lives -- or however long you choose to do so. But I've lost interest because of the high probability that you don't appear to have assimilated that which you are "arguing" about.
> 
> *The idea that The Beatles even approached the meticulous depth of structure, emotions, concepts of Brahms' compositions is completely and utterly absurd, and doesn't need discussion for anyone even remotely familiar with either of these artists' works.*


Really? I'm not the only one. Goodall believes the most revolutionary composers are Beethoven, Wagner, and the Beatles! I suggest you watch that video. I just watched it myself earlier today, and it blew my mind they were more influential and had more depth even in the songs I didn't like than I gave them credit for. You are using generalized sentences, you probably didn't actually analyze the Beatles' music. I've done it for both Beatles and Brahms, and Beefheart. There is a difference when you analyze music NOT based on preconceptions.

To place Trout Mask as going further than Rite of Spring is to have not assimilated Rite of Spring fully. By the way, I only said the Beatles Strawberry Fields was as meticulously constructed as Brahms' works.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Really? I'm not the only one. Goodall believes the most revolutionary composers are Beethoven, Wagner, and *the Beatles*!


What, all of them? Ringo could barely play the drums. Harrison? Okay guitarist and occasional nice tune …


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> What, all of them? Ringo could barely play the drums. Harrison? Okay guitarist and occasional nice tune …


 Ringo has some inventive drumming sometimes. I think he meant the Beatles as the whole product, including George Martin. He was key to elevating their music, even though John & Paul had some raw talent.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Goodall said he thinks the Beatles is the most revolutiinary and influential in the 20th Century more than Stravinsky! I don't know if I buy that...

He obviously had something against Classical avant agarde and Cage.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Really? I'm not the only one. Goodall believes the most revolutionary composers are Beethoven, Wagner, and the Beatles! I suggest you watch that video. I just watched it myself earlier today, and it blew my mind they were more influential and had more depth even in the songs I didn't like than I gave them credit for. You are using generalized sentences, you probably didn't actually analyze the Beatles' music. I've done it for both Beatles and Brahms, and Beefheart. There is a difference when you analyze music NOT based on preconceptions.
> 
> To place Trout Mask as going further than Rite of Spring is to have not assimilated Rite of Spring fully. By the way, I only said the Beatles Strawberry Fields was as meticulously constructed as Brahms' works.


Well then, it must be true! :lol: The Beatles revolutionized music as much as Beethoven's 9th Symphony, Tristan & Isolde, and more than Stravinsky!! :lol: They're also "avant-garde" and wrote songs as meticulous as Brahms Symphonies, his German Requiem and his Piano Concertos! Thank you for this newfound state of awe over how incredible they really are!!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

In the days of the Beatles, a pop LP might contain one or at most two good songs. The rest were usually quite forgettable.

So what really stood out for me was the quality of their music. Lots of gold, not very much dross. And (thank whatever Gods there be) no more songs about sobbing young men with their girls' names embroidered on their pillows (I'm not making this up) and stuff like that. Most of what the Beatles did was truly interesting.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Well then, it must be true! :lol: The Beatles revolutionized music as much as Beethoven's 9th Symphony, Tristan & Isolde, and more than Stravinsky!! :lol: They're also "avant-garde" and wrote songs as meticulous as Brahms Symphonies, his German Requiem and his Piano Concertos! Thank you for this newfound state of awe over how incredible they really are!!


You're welcome, I figured you'd come through


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> You're welcome, I figured you'd come through


Yes, but of course 

If you've read my criteria it should be evident why I wouldn't find The Beatles significant. The goal of creating music lies in the result. A truly innovative work of music will _sound_ innovative, as it is music, regardless of how it is being made. The purpose of music (all art) is the _relaying of an emotion(s) and/or concept(s) to create an effect_. All the most incredible art did so _very_ extraordinarily, standing out from its history in ways few, if anyone, could or has ever matched. The fundamental that Goodall is missing is that The Beatles did _not_ apply their "innovations" (if they can truly be called that even) to relay emotions, concepts (or especially the depths thereof) in results that were extraordinary or new. If you are honest with yourself, you can test this: which one of their love songs elicited the subject in any great depth of insight, in a way that was new or powerful compared to any great work that elicited similar emotions for hundreds of years prior? Which one of their enthusiastic songs did the same? Which one of their more "innovative" songs was truly more startling than the work(s) it drew from or that had been produced prior to them? Etc. You will be very hard pressed to name a single composition of theirs that did what it did to a historically great degree, with a few (at best) arguable exceptions. And yet these are artists that are "historically extraordinary"? Based entirely on results (and not the mythology surrounding them), why? The primary reason Tristan & Isolde, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, the Rite of Spring, Trout Mask Replica, and many others, were so significant (and truly innovative), is in the actual _result_, the music coming from the speakers (or in the concert hall). Not merely in the techniques applied (which were quite impressive anyway), but in that they _applied_ their techniques to the ends of entirely new and revolutionary states of expression, of emotion(s)/concept(s), the likes of which had never been experienced before. If one actually _listens_ to Rock history, one will see for themselves that The Beatles music was only a minor advance on what came before and hardly innovative during their time (and even then, primarily in a limited spectrum: they were "innovative for a pop band"), and that they presented experiences that had already been presented in much more startling ways by earlier artists or by their contemporaries. And that even their most outstanding compositions have been far surpassed since, which is not something one can say for truly innovative, great artists like Beethoven, Wagner, Stravinsky, etc.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Yes, but of course
> 
> If you've read my criteria it should be evident why I wouldn't find The Beatles significant. The goal of creating music lies in the result. A truly innovative work of music will _sound_ innovative, as it is music, regardless of how it is being made. The purpose of music (all art) is the _relaying of an emotion(s) and/or concept(s) to create an effect_. All the most incredible art did so _very_ extraordinarily, standing out from its history in ways few, if anyone, could or has ever matched. The fundamental that Goodall is missing is that The Beatles did _not_ apply their "innovations" (if they can truly be called that even) to relay emotions, concepts (or especially the depths thereof) in results that were extraordinary or new. If you are honest with yourself, you can test this: which one of their love songs elicited the subject in any great depth of insight, in a way that was new or powerful compared to any great work that elicited similar emotions for hundreds of years prior? Which one of their enthusiastic songs did the same? Which one of their more "innovative" songs was truly more startling than the work(s) it drew from? Etc. You will be very hard pressed to name a single composition of theirs that did what it did to a historically great degree, with a few (at best) arguable exceptions. And yet these are artists that are "historically extraordinary"? Based entirely on results (and not the mythology surrounding them), why? The primary reason Tristan & Isolde, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, the Rite of Spring, Trout Mask Replica, and many others, were so significant (and truly innovative), is in the actual _result_, the music coming from the speakers (or in the concert hall). Not merely in the techniques applied (which were quite impressive anyway), but in that they _applied_ their techniques to the ends of entirely new and revolutionary states of expression, of emotion(s)/concept(s), the likes of which had never been experienced before. If one actually _listens_ to Rock history, one will see for themselves that The Beatles music was only a minor advance on what came before and hardly innovative during their time (and even then, primarily in a limited spectrum: they were "innovative for a pop band"), and that they presented experiences that had already been presented in much more startling ways by earlier artists or by their contemporaries. And that even their most outstanding compositions have been far surpassed since, which is not something one can say for truly innovative, great artists like Beethoven, Wagner, Stravinsky, etc.


I don't care for the Beatles' love songs. I always thought Yesterday was overrated, even though the cadence was not conventional. But I don't find anything in Trout Mask that is emotionally deep, or even conceptually. Polyrhythms are not new, even the Beatles used that already. The use of poly keys or whatever you would call it is not conceptually significant. It is more interesting to create harmony between those keys. They are being innovative for the sake of being innovative, not for a significant purpose, and only to turn the world on its side, which can only be ingenius for so much.

The great songs by the Beatles are conceptually innovative as Goodall and I suggested, and do make an impact, at least on a lot of people. I don't see how you can lower the Beatles' status without lowering Trout Mask along on musical terms or cultural terms. Trout Mask is unique, and has some great songs, but the concepts are either not new or serve to further music in my opinion. Rock critics always go into extra-musical criteria, and bring political or social insight, etc. More than analysing the music itself.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I don't care for the Beatles' love songs. I always thought Yesterday was overrated, even though the cadence was not conventional. But I don't find anything in Trout Mask that is emotionally deep, or even conceptually. Polyrhythms are not new, even the Beatles used that already. The use of poly keys or whatever you would call it is not conceptually significant. It is more interesting to create harmony between those keys. They are being innovative for the sake of being innovative, not for a significant purpose, and only to turn the world on its side, which can only be ingenius for so much.
> 
> The great songs by the Beatles are conceptually innovative as Goodall and I suggested, and do make an impact, at least on a lot of people. I don't see how you can lower the Beatles' status without lowering Trout Mask along on musical terms or cultural terms. Trout Mask is unique, and has some great songs, but the concepts are either not new or serve to further music in my opinion. Rock critics always go into extra-musical criteria, and bring political or social insight, etc. More than analysing the music itself.


Okay then, please link me to songs/compositions that elicit the same emotions and concepts as Trout Mask Replica in remotely the same way or degree! Anything prior to it in music history at your disposal, go for it (discounting some of his own compositions)!

Conversely, please provide more than a few (arguable) Beatles songs in their entire body of work that one can say the same thing about, since we are supposedly comparing them... Which concepts are they expressing that are so innovative?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Okay then, please link me to songs/compositions that elicit the same emotions and concepts as Trout Mask Replica! Anything prior to it in music history at your disposal, go for it (discounting some of his own compositions)!


I'm saying I don't find anything overtly emotional in Trout Mask. But I would think Messian's Turangulia Symphony captures the adventurous spirit of the album. The polyrhythms is present in Debussy, Bartok, Stravinsky himself, even the Beatles have some polyrhythms. Cage's music like Music of Changes captures the disonnance, and turning the world on its side more artfully. For sheer avant garde sonic impact, Penderecki's Symphony, Mingus' Black Saint. In terms of humour and absurdism, Frank Zappa's got loads. Robert Johnson for the blues aspect. His music is a world contained within.

P.s. On Robert Johnson. i find his music much more emotional, mezmerizing and gripping other than the 2 songs on Trout Mask I mentioned. Trout Mask still has its place in the pantheon of music, I already said I think it's a masterpiece, but just not as transcendental as some other pieces of music.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm saying I don't find anything overtly emotional in Trout Mask. But I would think Messian's Turangulia Symphony captures the adventurous spirit of the album. The polyrhythms is present in Debussy, Bartok, Stravinsky himself, even the Beatles have some polyrhythms. Cage's music like Music of Changes captures the disonnance, and turning the world on its side more artfully. For sheer avant garde sonic impact, Penderecki's Symphony, Mingus' Black Saint. In terms of humour and absurdism, Frank Zappa's got loads. Robert Johnson for the blues aspect. His music is a world contained within.
> 
> P.s. On Robert Johnson. i find his music much more emotional, mezmerizing and gripping other than the 2 songs on Trout Mask I mentioned. Trout Mask still has its place in the pantheon of music, I already said I think it's a masterpiece, but just not as transcendental as some other pieces of music.


Okay good, if we agree that your choices are accurate, contemplate the fact it took the combination of 10+ other historical masterpieces/historically extraordinary artists (discounting the silly comparison to The Beatles) to come up with a match...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

I for one prefer Turtles to Beatles, better at sea..........


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Okay good, if we agree that your choices are accurate, contemplate the fact it took the combination of 10+ other historical masterpieces/historically extraordinary artists (discounting the silly comparison to The Beatles) to come up with a match...


Forgot Ives, he raised a good cacophony. Sure Trout Mask is still great, never said it sucked or was average, just not as great as Scaruffi makes it out to be, as least in my analysis.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Forgot Ives, he raised a good cacophony. Sure Trout Mask is still great, never said it sucked or was average, just not as great as Scaruffi makes it out to be, as least in my analysis.


Fair enough :tiphat:


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

AfterHours said:


> Rite of Spring is astonishing in its own right and I rank it very highly in musical history.


How generous



AfterHours said:


> You guys can keep "discussing" Trout Mask Replica without actually assimilating it if you want. You're free to think whatever you want about it for the rest of your lives -- or however long you choose to do so. But I've lost interest because of the high probability that you don't appear to have assimilated that which you are "arguing" about.


You're talking about a rock album


----------

