# Rock Bottom - Robert Wyatt (1974) - Review/Analysis - Discussion Welcome



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

*For my criteria page and ratings explanations, go here:* https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15503

*Rating: 9.4/10*

Arranged as a complete bout of stream-of-consciousness, blossoming from a gradually upending kaleidoscope of succumbing emotional episodes and cast from a mass density of instrumental brotherhood, _Rock Bottom_ is an extraordinary confluence of seamless, ambiguous states of mind steeped in an overwhelming sense of personal tragedy. Wyatt assumes an inexplicable plethora of emotional states, galvanized by ascents through euphoric chaos and harrowing nightmares halfway between Surrealist and Dadaist predicaments. The work progresses as a communal mustering of forces at once irrevocably consequential and sudden, unexplained phenomena, as a prodigal event, as a miracle unfolding, and as a single entity where each aspect is interconnected to a greater whole, a single thrust of combined emotional resignation that encapsulates within it seemingly all emotions and all expressions, each of them fluctuating, inflammatory, growing and receding. Additionally, it acquires a sense of powerlessness and loneliness inside the overwhelming specter of the cosmos and attains a complexity of layers and metaphysical qualities, expanding into a spiritual ascension that becomes increasingly disoriented, flummoxed and senseless the more awareness it acquires, the more profundity it emotes; thus mired in some ultimate dichotomy against logic.

_Sea Song_, fraught with a narcotic, otherworldly milieu and contemplated by a profound, painfully heavy impression of sorrow, is a funeral march on a despairing search for answers. It magically erupts into a submerged, overwhelmed choir and then into the passionate, lost grief of Wyatt's lone, plaintive and confused cries as the keyboards strike repeating chords, haunting and ominous. _A Last Straw_ floats oceanic, ascending and descending in eternal swim. It moves in an unorthodox, cyclic and rhythmic pulse as Wyatt calls out like a dying, drowning mammal, in between flexibly patterned, elastic percussion before the bottom drops out in a series of descending, increasingly dreadful, low notes. _Little Red Riding Hood Hit the Road_ explodes in a sensational, vibrant show, a coalescing influx of multi-faceted liberation, the unfurling of states of being; of mind over matter while trapped inside a harrowing, distressing nightmare. It is a colliding series of transformations, infusing Wyatt into and out of existence. His crying falsetto wavers, climbing then falling in laments of regret, corralling with the momentum of the frenzied, swirling vacuum; slowing down, speeding up, and dramatically reversing direction into inverse lyrical passages and back again before nodding off in troubled nonsense. _Alifib/Alife_ opens as a miraculous rebirth, evoking deep solitude in a dreamy, nautical reverie. Wyatt, alone at the keyboard, poetically unveils a deep-seated, desperate ode, casting tears of regret into sparkling constellations of notes, sinking ever so slowly beneath a calm and drifting sea, farther and farther from Alfreda (his future wife) to which he begs forgiveness. Beneath his delicate, lonely keyboard strokes, his haunting voice calls out repeatedly in a sacred whisper of paralyzed and comatose cardiac arrest, praying to her from the brink of death, trying to bring himself back, to re-forge their union before it's too late. Above this, he sings a mesmerizing hymn from the edge of birth and death, mourning their distance and their failures in an aching poem of clumsy baby talk. As with a newborn to his mother he pleas to her in a heartbreaking show of eternal dependency. Drowning further, a gradual rise of calamity, confusion and suspense ensues. Wyatt repeats his words in a less formulated, dying stupor as narcoleptic fits take hold. Clarinet and sax figures contort, squealing and squirming, anxiously contriving a strange, brewing storm of pent up intensity before spewing out a wrenching, overflowing spastic attack of uncontrolled, unmitigated abandon, bursting and then calming into a striking retort from Alfreda while a haunting sense of eternal damnation seems to swell before them. _Little Red Robin Hood Hit the Road _explodes in a relentless storm of manic, increasingly frenetic percussion and instrumental fireworks while Wyatt repeats a mantra of prayers behind the screaming call of his keyboard play, before finally passing out into a heavenly backdrop of dreamy viola where an awkward stupor of unintelligible vocals drift about, hypnotized indefinitely in a void and godless world.

From this work emerged one of the most compassionate and singular vocal performances in music history, a voice that managed an impossible, simultaneous evocation: troubled _and_ content, sorrowed _and_ ecstatic, lonely and distant yet welcoming, meditative _and_ perplexed, enigmatic yet open, _all at once_. Surrounding his voice was a complete transfiguration of instruments and composition, an entire world of sound turned _inward_, a deep exhaling as if erupting from memories inside the womb, an otherworldy vacuum of sound that is both birthing and vibrant, yet buried, funereal and dying at the same time. Among the most startlingly original, emotionally overwhelming and profoundly personal works of art in existence, Robert Wyatt's _Rock Bottom_ is one of the greatest artistic masterpieces that has ever been produced by anyone, in any medium, a work of seemingly endless expressive and conceptual depth, an enigma that will forever remain utterly miraculous and inexplicable.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Not just a good album but an important one.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

AfterHours said:


> Among the most startlingly original, emotionally overwhelming and profoundly personal works of art in existence, Robert Wyatt's _Rock Bottom_ is one of the greatest artistic masterpieces that has ever been produced by anyone, in any medium, a work of seemingly endless expressive and conceptual depth, an enigma that will forever remain utterly miraculous and inexplicable.


I completely agree. It's one of my absolute favorites.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

I also love your way with words, describing the music. It's very difficult to find original words to describe music I know (as I'm a part time 'critic'). I often have the inclination to describe great music with just 'wow'.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Casebearer said:


> I also love your way with words, describing the music. It's very difficult to find original words to describe music I know (as I'm a part time 'critic'). I often have the inclination to describe great music with just 'wow'.


Thank you  this one, as you know, is especially challenging, so I really appreciate you recognizing the effort it took to find words and sentences to actually describe what is happening on the album.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Casebearer said:


> I also love your way with words, describing the music. It's very difficult to find original words to describe music I know (as I'm a part time 'critic'). I often have the inclination to describe great music with just 'wow'.


Also, most of the time I've listened to Rock Bottom, I too could only think "Wow". Few works have rendered me so speechless.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Rock critics have a penchant for expounding music based on their preconceptions of the music, sometimes wrong, rather than finding the simple meaning behind the lyrics and from the music itself. It is a myth that the album is about his personal tragedy resulting from his accident, as a lot of it was written before it, as he later revealed. It is mainly a collection of love songs, and got married on the day the album was released. As for the music itself (you won't find an analysis of it from most critics, Christgau just gave it a one liner in his review on his overall subjective take) it has some interesting melodies (as in a lot of Soft Machine albums) mainly in the first song, with a few interesting chord changes. The second song had some jazziness and interesting harmonies. The production on the first 3 songs is great, and each song flowed well after another. I would say the experimentation started to get tedious after the first 3 songs, as you can also tell by the lyrics. Rock artists tend to cover their lack of inspiration by introducing more ambiguity, basically it was filler after the first 3 songs in my opinion.

I wouldn't call it one of the greatest albums. Astral Weeks is way ahead of it, and is more consistent, with more variety as well, and better lyrics.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Rock critics have a penchant for expounding music based on their preconceptions of the music, sometimes wrong, rather than finding the simple meaning behind the lyrics and from the music itself. It is a myth that the album is about his personal tragedy resulting from his accident, as a lot of it was written before it, as he later revealed. It is mainly a collection of love songs, and got married on the day the album was released. As for the music itself (you won't find an analysis of it from most critics, Christgau just gave it a one liner in his review on his overall subjective take) it has some interesting melodies (as in a lot of Soft Machine albums) mainly in the first song, with a few interesting chord changes. The second song had some jazziness and interesting harmonies. The production on the first 3 songs is great, and each song flowed well after another. I would say the experimentation started to get tedious after the first 3 songs, as you can also tell by the lyrics. Rock artists tend to cover their lack of inspiration by introducing more ambiguity, basically it was filler after the first 3 songs in my opinion.
> 
> I wouldn't call it one of the greatest albums. Astral Weeks is way ahead of it, and is more consistent, with more variety as well, and better lyrics.


Sorry, I consider your perspective as that of someone who hasn't assimilated the work to any great extent like I have and not one I'd take into serious consideration. I know this work in depth and know what I've written adequately describes it. This review/analysis is over 10 years old (in mostly the same form), holds up to scrutiny and has been reviewed by countless experienced listeners of the work as well as music critics/historians, and not one single time has the feedback been anything less than an acknowledgement that it well details the experience and content of Rock Bottom.

Of course, you are free to think what you want about it. Anyone is free to listen to the album, as Ive provided, and closely compare what I've written to the music as it is playing.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> This review/analysis is over 10 years old (in mostly the same form), holds up to scrutiny and has been reviewed by countless experienced listeners of the work as well as music critics/historians, and not one single time has the feedback been anything less than an acknowledgement that it well details the experience and content of the work.


I don't wish to seem rude, but there is a first time for everything. To claim that phil doesn't see the work as you do so must have failed to assimilate it is a poor rebuttal of his counter-review.

I have to say that there are parts of your review that are, IMO, meaningless. It wouldn't matter which album was under consideration, I have no idea what is meant by, for example,



> The work progresses as a communal mustering of forces at once irrevocably consequential and sudden, unexplained phenomena, as a prodigal event, as a miracle unfolding, and as a single entity where each aspect is interconnected to a greater whole, a single thrust of combined emotional resignation that encapsulates within it seemingly all emotions and all expressions, each of them fluctuating, inflammatory, growing and receding.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> I don't wish to seem rude, but there is a first time for everything. To claim that phil doesn't see the work as you do so must have failed to assimilate it is a poor rebuttal of his counter-review.
> 
> I have to say that there are parts of your review that are, IMO, meaningless. It wouldn't matter which album was under consideration, I have no idea what is meant by, for example,


Re: Phil ... Based on what Phil said about the work, which is very little, I don't know why I have reason to think anything else. If he has more to say then perhaps we could discuss it a bit more. His comments need no further rebuttal than the review/analysis itself that I've posted as it did not address any of its details.

Re: Parts that you find meaningless/don't know what I mean ...

It's difficult to detail more than I already have or in too many different ways, as the album is so unique that accurate descriptions are hard to come up with in the first place, but I'll try and break this down in different wordings that may or may not suffice any better.

From my phone here, so if I can give better explanation later, I may do so if needed...

"The work progresses as a communal mustering of forces" ... ...referring to how all the instruments of the album seem organically merged, pulsating together, in a collective assembly or even "consciousness"

"at once irrevocably consequential and sudden, unexplained phenomena" ... the protagonist, Wyatt, increasingly gets thrown into/experiences states that are inexplicable and that don't follow typical logic, but that follow the otherworldly logic of a strange dream, and that seem to cause traversals into further states. The album unfolds more like a surrealist dream than reality. "irrevocable" refers to how the protagonist doesn't seem in control of what he is experiencing, and that he doesn't seem like he can change it ... keeps progressing into further and further states, "further down the rabbit hole" so to speak, instead of towards a resolution...

"as a prodigal event" ... referring to the lavish, extravagant resources (instrumental, details, and otherwise) that the work traverses, that enter and end, unfolding and continuously changing, in such a claustrophobic space, in such a (relatively) short amount of time

"and as a single entity where each aspect is interconnected to a greater whole..." ... the entire instrumental section of the album evokes its own "consciousness" as if it is itself "thinking" and "growing". It's not just an instrumental backing to Wyatt's singing, but serves a greater purpose as a very sensitive, entirely unique sound world (even "womb-like"), that is both an extension of Wyatt the protagonist, and at times an antagonist to him. All of it comes across as if it is collectively changing together, hence "fluctuating ... growing, receding" ... "inflammatory" refers also to this phenomena, but is specifying the moments of violence, distress and danger that suddenly arise throughout the work (track #3, the latter half of Alifib/Alife, the first half of track #6...)

Again, typing from my phone, so hope that makes sense... It might not all come together until the album is thoroughly assimilated. When I say something like this, I generally don't mean it condescendingly even though I understand that over the internet it can come across this way. I am just being completely honest. I would not say such a thing about a simpler work that draws on known traditions or that wasn't so original and creative. There is nothing else in all of art like Rock Bottom, so I wouldn't expect to understand it through usual means, or after a few listens ... unless one has given it its' proper due course (which no one is obligated to do whatsoever, but that I would strongly recommend to anyone truly interested).


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

@Macleod (or anyone else reading)

EDIT - re: "prodigal event"

Looking back on my notes from 10+ years ago, this is actually a typo, so thank you for influencing me to look into it as I was actually scratching my head a little when explaining it, not remembering that meaning as my original intention. "Prodigal" works too (as detailed above), but it has been incorrectly written this way for at least 5 or so years. It's actually supposed to read "prodigious event" meaning: "as if caused by a prodigy as an amazing or unusual thing, especially one out of the ordinary course of nature". That actually works better, though "prodigal" works too. Some day I'll probably update the review and change it back to that or something similar. But it is amusing to me that all this time it's read that way and I forgot what I originally wrote!


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2017)

@afterhours

Thank you for your explanation of your review. I appreciate the trouble you have gone to, and I can see some connection with the album I'm familiar with. However, I think much is attributable to a particular English brand of whimsy and eccentricity and is less serious than you suppose. I should add that this is one of the albums I'd take to a desert island.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> @afterhours
> 
> Thank you for your explanation of your review. I appreciate the trouble you have gone to, and I can see some connection with the album I'm familiar with. However, I think much is attributable to a particular English brand of whimsy and eccentricity and is less serious than you suppose. I should add that this is one of the albums I'd take to a desert island.


I agree with you that this brand of euphoria is a part of the interpretation, but I also think the tragic, funereal tones and nightmarish elements to the work are unmistakable.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

"Although the music itself is intense and often harrowing, and the lyrics to the songs are dense and obviously deeply personal, Wyatt has denied that the material was a direct result of the accident and the long period of recuperation. Indeed, much of the album had been written while in Venice in early 1973 prior to Wyatt's accident" as from Wikipedia, and another source I came across before. This denial by Wyatt has rendered false many inferences it was inspired by an "overwhelming sense of personal trgedy" as you put it. What I wrote dealt with it on musical terms as much as any review i've read. Anyone can infer any meaning out of the music, intended or not, but I'm just pointing out that misconception by many.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> "Although the music itself is intense and often harrowing, and the lyrics to the songs are dense and obviously deeply personal, Wyatt has denied that the material was a direct result of the accident and the long period of recuperation. Indeed, much of the album had been written while in Venice in early 1973 prior to Wyatt's accident" as from Wikipedia, and another source I came across before. This denial by Wyatt has rendered false many inferences it was inspired by an "overwhelming sense of personal trgedy" as you put it. What I wrote dealt with it on musical terms as much as any review i've read. Anyone can infer any meaning out of the music, intended or not, but I'm just pointing out that misconception by many.


That's totally fine, I too have seen reviews that mistakenly made that assumption. I never argued or made the claim that the album's content was a result of his accident. As written among many other aspects, it evokes an "overwhelming sense of personal tragedy". The album undoubtedly contains music that is clearly quite quite tragic, funereal, even harrowing in tone/atmosphere, (much of it evoking other emotions _simultaneously_ as well), regardless of where this may or may not be deriving from.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

The way I interpret the music and lyrics is it is not sad, funereal, or ominous at all. But more like detached and isolated from Society. The underwater theme to me is like going somewhere unknown, less travelled and away from the world of humans above, like where he met his love in The Sea, who is eccentric like him that he identifies with. Nothing about loss, rebirth, etc.

The musical style is pretty common with prog rock at the time, and to me suggests outlandish, Doctor Who-like.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

From my phone so no guarantee I'll articulate this perfectly...

That's a fair part of the interpretation as well. As I've said in the review, Wyatt's vocals + the music are evoking several layers (and dichotomies) of emotions/concepts simultaneously. The album is not necessarily replete with lyrics and much of those that are there are ambiguous in the extreme, leaving a lot of music and space where one needs to be able to evaluate the tone and sensation of what is happening (and not just words). I'm not sure how the melancholic, resigned, funereal, lugubrious, mysterious/ominous (and so forth) emotions/concepts of the work could be missed, but I'm not going to "try and force you to hear it". As far as loss and rebirth, this is quite clear to me as well. The entire album is colored by resignation in the aftermath of tremendous loss, in its tones, in its often tentative, melancholic and aching instrumental articulation and color, in Wyatt's often melancholic vocals (among other emotions), in its sense of resigned pace and painful surge forward/upward, and how the music is so enclosed, cavernous and pulsating (womb-like). The sense of rebirth is evoked by the womb-like sensation of the music, the "birthing/orgasmic" ascension of structure and music; during the "domino effect" of transformative personas traversed along Wyatts stream-of-concsiousness of "baby talk" over the latter half of the album. The music quite literally coalesces and explodes at the end, climaxing and "giving birth" to a new state of being. Prior to this, over the first half of the album, Wyatt seems to have traversed a similar, almost mirrored (but somewhat more lucid) journey, resulting in the transformative nightmare of the 3rd track ... before it "resets" at its mid point, perhaps following "death" (or at least analogous to such a state ... Perhaps a resetting of "self")


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Of course facts about the album (and music in general) are very important and should be taken account of in any interpretation. Nevertheless what I like about your reviews is that you go far - and inevitably take some risks doing that - interpreting them. I don't mind a bit of speculation in the process, more important to me is that you try to reach the core of the music. Even though that is ultimately impossible with words.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> The album undoubtedly contains music that is clearly


It may be clear to you, but what it 'contains' or evokes in others is for others to say.



AfterHours said:


> but I'm not going to "try and force you to hear it".


Yet you are going to insist that it's there. You might take into account the possibility that what you hear is partly a reflection of who _you _are, and how _you _were feeling when _you _first formed a response to it. What I hear and feel is an accumulation of what I felt in 1975 (when I first heard it), what I was feeling about life at that time, and what I've been feeling about it ever since. It reflects a core memory of that period and acquired a patina of subsequent memories and feelings. Try watching an episode of _The End of the Pier Show _and listening to Ivor Cutler, Hatfield and the North and Daevid Allen to get a better sense of the 'scene' (I hate that word, but can't thik of a better one at the moment.)



AfterHours said:


> As far as loss and rebirth, this is quite clear to me as well. The entire album is colored by resignation in the aftermath of tremendous loss, in its tones, in its often tentative, melancholic and aching instrumental articulation and color, in Wyatt's often melancholic vocals (among other emotions), in its sense of resigned pace and painful surge forward/upward, and how the music is so enclosed, cavernous and pulsating (womb-like). The sense of rebirth is evoked by the womb-like sensation of the music, the "birthing/orgasmic" ascension of structure and music; during the "domino effect" of transformative personas traversed along Wyatts stream-of-concsiousness of "baby talk" over the latter half of the album. The music quite literally coalesces and explodes at the end, climaxing and "giving birth" to a new state of being. Prior to this, over the first half of the album, Wyatt seems to have traversed a similar, almost mirrored (but somewhat more lucid) journey, resulting in the transformative nightmare of the 3rd track ... before it "resets" at its mid point, perhaps following "death" (or at least analogous to such a state ... Perhaps a resetting of "self")


Thanks for sharing your perceptions. I find nothing nightmarish in the album, but something is being expressed about personal relationships and in a highly personal way which is quite different from the 'Baby I Love Yer' of conventional rock/pop. (Give me Wyatt over Plant any day of the week!)


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

I like Old Rotten Hat better.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> It may be clear to you, but what it 'contains' or evokes in others is for others to say.
> 
> Yet you are going to insist that it's there. You might take into account the possibility that what you hear is partly a reflection of who _you _are, and how _you _were feeling when _you _first formed a response to it. What I hear and feel is an accumulation of what I felt in 1975 (when I first heard it), what I was feeling about life at that time, and what I've been feeling about it ever since. It reflects a core memory of that period and acquired a patina of subsequent memories and feelings. Try watching an episode of _The End of the Pier Show _and listening to Ivor Cutler, Hatfield and the North and Daevid Allen to get a better sense of the 'scene' (I hate that word, but can't thik of a better one at the moment.)
> 
> Thanks for sharing your perceptions. I find nothing nightmarish in the album, but something is being expressed about personal relationships and in a highly personal way which is quite different from the 'Baby I Love Yer' of conventional rock/pop. (Give me Wyatt over Plant any day of the week!)


This is actually not the case. There are things called emotions and there are characteristics in which they can be recognized by. Enthusiasm has different characteristics and sounds different than anger, and anger has different characteristics and sounds different than depression, and so on. If you guys want to think that there is no melancholy in the music, or that it's an entirely pleasant affair, or whatever, than you're entirely free to do so.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> If you guys want to think that there is no melancholy in the music, or that it's an entirely pleasant affair, or whatever, than you're entirely free to do so.


This is _not _actually the case. I accept that music can be generally perceived to be 'happy' or 'sad' (to use a crude example) but 'funereal' is something else altogether. It's a matter of degree. I hear, or rather feel 'melancholy' but not 'rebirth' or 'orgasmic'!


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> This is _not _actually the case. I accept that music can be generally perceived to be 'happy' or 'sad' (to use a crude example) but 'funereal' is something else altogether. It's a matter of degree. I hear, or rather feel 'melancholy' but not 'rebirth' or 'orgasmic'!


So you honestly don't hear "having a mournful, somber character" (funereal) here?






I do not mean "orgasmic" literally -- as in the sexual sense -- the word is being applied as more an analogy. I am referring to the tremendous tension built up over the last half of the album through to the end of Alifib/Alife, and then the explosive final track coalescing and summoning all that tension, and then all of this suddenly subsiding into a "release" of tension in the finale (with Cutler singing).

I explained the "rebirth" and stand by what I said. I'm not going to explain it further right now partially because I have no idea "what" you don't understand about what I wrote (all you said is you just disagree, but without explanation, so it's not really possible to address except for me to just guess what I need to put in different words for you, etc). Perhaps later or when/if I update the review, I'll lay it all out in greater detail. No guarantees, but it's possible I'll spend some time to do so.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> So you honestly don't hear "having a mournful, somber character" (funereal) here?


I already said I don't _to the extent that you hear it._

I can also recognise that the strong propulsive rhythm of Alife is open to a variety of interpretations which might include 'orgasmic' (literally or figuratively) or 'birthing'. It could also be an illustration of frustration or insanity or the kind of euphoria tinged with regret that lies at the heart of lifetime relationships - we're having a great time, but it's all in vain when we fall to dust.

It's not so much that I don't 'understand' what you say (though sometimes I don't) as much as I don't 'hear' what you describe.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> I already said I don't _to the extent that you hear it._
> 
> I can also recognise that the strong propulsive rhythm of Alife is open to a variety of interpretations which might include 'orgasmic' (literally or figuratively) or 'birthing'. It could also be an illustration of frustration or insanity or the kind of euphoria tinged with regret that lies at the heart of lifetime relationships - we're having a great time, but it's all in vain when we fall to dust.
> 
> It's not so much that I don't 'understand' what you say (though sometimes I don't) as much as I don't 'hear' what you describe.


Re: "Don't to the extent that you hear it" ... Okay, so ... what?

Re: your brief analysis of the latter half of the album ... I agree with your brief analysis there. I think that you think I have claimed, perhaps by the simple fact I've posted a review/analysis, that there is _no more_ to say about the album than what I've written. That is very definitely not the case. The review/analysis is quite short and intentionally left open to further insights that could be drawn from it. I could easily write several pages about the album -- or even more if I wanted to delve further for the reader into Dadaist and Surrealist art and The Soft Machine and how Moon in June and Las Vegas Tengo are precursors to the album, and Syd Barrett was a likely influence, and how Kevin Ayers' Shooting at the Moon ... ... etc. There is PLENTY further analysis that could be done on any angle of the album: from the euphoric, happy angle to the most depressed, funereal angles, and everything in between. The point is, it's all there. The mistake that people make, in my opinion would be only taking one angle: "it's a happy album"... "it's a sad album" etc. If you re-read the review you will find that I've already mentioned its ambiguity, its encapsulation of seemingly all emotions, the multitide of dichotomies the album is traversing, and how Wyatt's voice sounds multi-emotional simultaneously ... and how ... blah blah blah.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Re: "Don't to the extent that you hear it" ... Okay, so ... what?
> 
> Re: your brief analysis of the latter half of the album ... I agree with your brief analysis there. I think that you think I have claimed, perhaps by the simple fact I've posted a review/analysis, that there is _no more_ to say about the album than what I've written. That is very definitely not the case. The review/analysis is quite short and intentionally left open to further insights that could be drawn from it. I could easily write several pages about the album -- or even more if I wanted to delve further for the reader into Dadaist and Surrealist art and The Soft Machine and how Moon in June and Las Vegas Tengo are precursors to the album, and Syd Barrett was a likely influence, and how Kevin Ayers' Shooting at the Moon ... ... etc. There is PLENTY further analysis that could be done on any angle of the album: from the euphoric, happy angle to the most depressed, funereal angles, and everything in between. The point is, it's all there. The mistake that people make, in my opinion would be only taking one angle: "it's a happy album"... "it's a sad album" etc. If you re-read the review you will find that I've already mentioned its ambiguity, its encapsulation of seemingly all emotions, the multitide of dichotomies the album is traversing, and how Wyatt's voice sounds multi-emotional simultaneously ... and how ... blah blah blah.


I think what Macleod is trying to say is the funereal aspect may not exist, which I would agree with. I think the slow keyboard playing is likely to set the strangeness of the scene, with the underwater world, etc. rather than to portray a mournful character. When Wyatt says "we are not alone" that is a clear hint he is happy he found his match.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think what Macleod is trying to say is the funereal aspect may not exist, which I would agree with. I think the slow keyboard playing is likely to set the strangeness of the scene, with the underwater world, etc. rather than to portray a mournful character. When Wyatt says "we are not alone" that is a clear hint he is happy he found his match.


We're going to have to agree to disagree as it's a bit flabbergasting to me that you don't hear these aspects, even after they've been pointed out. If this is really the case, you are the only two people I've ever talked to about it that can't seem to hear the blatant mournful, ominous, mysterious, melancholy, resigned tones and atmosphere of the work -- though Macleod seems to at least partially acknowledge it, just "not to the same extent". I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone reviewing Rock Bottom or discussing it any detail where these elements (or similarly described) weren't obvious and among the very first phenomena that are noticed and mentioned.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Re: "Don't to the extent that you hear it" ... Okay, so ... what?


Er...there is no more. I hear 'melancholy', not 'funereal'. That's it



AfterHours said:


> The point is, it's all there.


The point is, it's not. What is 'there' only exists in the interaction between the artist and the listener. What is 'there' for me is not the same as what is 'there' for you.

Finally, I would probably say that I've not analysed the album to the extent that you have, and generally speaking, I don't, with any album, go much beyond responding, and then reflecting on that response. I don't look for a detailed explanation. So, I love Rock Bottom and I might wonder what it is I love about it, but being solipsistic, I'll go with the idea that it simply chimes with me, my mood, my emotional characteristics, that the humour appeals, that I like the arrangement/instrumentation - the component parts. I don't 'like it' because of what it is 'about' (though I would say that my madness fits in neatly with my wife's!)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I completely agree with the OP's opinion, that this is an important album. It actually surprises me to see this album praised so highly, as I thought it was an obscurity that only I held in such esteem. This review & thread vindicates my high regard for this work. 

I find the criticisms to be curious, but typical.

Regardless of evidence, I always felt that this album was concerned in some way with the tragedy that befell Robert Wyatt, and his love for his wife which got him through it. That's the way I will always see it, and that is what endears it to me.

I especially like Hugh Hopper's speeded-up bass solo.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Here's an example of what Wyatt sounds like (from the same year as Rock Bottom) when he produces and sings a song that is purely happy, isn't ambiguous, mysterious, languid, resigned or melancholy, etc.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> I completely agree with the OP's opinion, that this is an important album. It actually surprises me to see this album praised so highly, as I thought it was an obscurity that only I held in such esteem. This review & thread vindicates my high regard for this work.
> 
> I find the criticisms to be curious, but typical.
> 
> ...


Yes, Wyatt recorded the album after the tragedy, while in euphoric states (Probably also on pain medications? Perhaps other drugs?) which could account for the strange unity, ambiguity and fluctuation between happiness (and facets thereof) and melancholy (and facets thereof) that pervades the work. I think it is likely that the work is colored by this combination of post-tragedy sadness and euphoria, of helplessness and resignation, of a sense of undying bond, love and "motherly dependency" with Alfreda, of an urge to escape reality, to swim off into the sea (especially now that one can't walk), an urge to reset or be reborn, and so forth.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Here's an example of what Wyatt sounds like (from the same year as Rock Bottom) when he produces and sings a song that is purely happy, isn't ambiguous, mysterious, languid, resigned or melancholy, etc.


Hey that's a Monkees' song!  People can get different responses in music. Maybe a lot of people feel that melancholy. But i associated that cold, detached sound not as something really sad. A lot of people try to intellectualize the Beatles (your favourite group ) and others, to which they firmly deny those extraneous meanings, so I personally don't try to trod on unfirm ground too much. But anyone is free to do as they like.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Hey that's a Monkees' song!  People can get different responses in music. Maybe a lot of people feel that melancholy. But i associated that cold, detached sound not as something really sad. A lot of people try to intellectualize the Beatles (your favourite group ) and others, to which they firmly deny those extraneous meanings, so I personally don't try to trod on unfirm ground too much. But anyone is free to do as they like.


"Over intellectualizing" The Beatles is practically a worldwide sport! When you are evaluating a singular work of art such as Rock Bottom you need to set aside "how you've evaluated other works" and recognize that you are dealing with much more unique phenomena that, in order to be understood, requires real, in depth observation and analysis, otherwise you are doing the work a disservice. As regards the "melancholic" aspect to the work: I am not referring necessarily to one's "response" to the music, as in, whether or not you "feel" the melancholy. I am referring to correctly observing the emotional sensation being conveyed by the artist(s). To call the Beatles' For No One or Yesterday a "happy affair" and not recognize the melancholy states about the past/past love that they are infact conveying, would simply be an incorrect analysis of the music at hand. Neither of those Beatles songs makes me "feel" those emotions in a particularly strong sense, but it is not subjective as to their fundamental tone and conveyance (fwiw, both are successful IMO, just not extraordinarily so). It is perfectly fine to note the euphoric, escapist, seaward, happy side, of Rock Bottom, as it is indeed quite ambiguous, conveying many emotional sides throughout. But to miss the melancholic, mysterious tone and atmosphere to the work is an incomplete analysis on your part.

However, if all you've been talking about this whole time is that you don't "feel" the melancholy, then what I've typed above may not apply.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> As regards the "melancholic" aspecI am not referring necessarily to one's "response" to the music, as in, whether or not you "feel" the melancholy. * I am referring to correctly observing the emotional sensation being conveyed by the artist(s). *


"Correctly" is what only the songwriter can attribute to an interpretation, if even that. The fact Tom Pinnock who has interviewed Wyatt before, calls Rock Bottom experimental and "pastoral" may bear some weight. Also a mysterious tone is what we may perceive in the music, but may not necessarily be the intent of the songwriter who would be more aware of his own feelings.

http://www.disco-robertwyatt.com/images/Robert/interviews/Uncut_feb_2014/index.htm


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> "Correctly" is what only the songwriter can attribute to an interpretation, if even that. The fact Tom Pinnock who has interviewed Wyatt before, calls Rock Bottom experimental and "pastoral" may bear some weight. Also a mysterious tone is what we may perceive in the music, but may not necessarily be the intent of the songwriter who would be more aware of his own feelings.
> 
> http://www.disco-robertwyatt.com/images/Robert/interviews/Uncut_feb_2014/index.htm


No, sorry, this is a false idea that one cannot observe the emotional state or conveyance of something. There are definitions to emotions (look them up) and there are characteristics that they can be known by, and these have been known to composers for centuries.

Also, to determine that Wyatt was completely aware of his own feelings in the work may or may not be true in this case, due to his questionable mental state and the tragedy and hospitalization that had just altered his life forever. Though, much more likely to hold true in most other cases, where I'd usually agree with you.

The musical result tells the tale. The emotional sensation(s) being conveyed by the artist is infact observable and can be correctly assimilated. If you don't feel this is the case, perhaps this is the fundamental reason you haven't done so (more completely) or withdraw yourself from trying very hard to do so, or from more extensive analysis.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> No, sorry, this is a false idea that one cannot observe the emotional state or conveyance of something. There are definitions to emotions (look them up) and there are characteristics that they can be known by, and these have been known to composers for centuries.
> 
> Also, to determine that Wyatt was completely aware of his own feelings in the work may or may not be true in this case, due to his questionable mental state and the tragedy and hospitalization that had just altered his life forever. Though, much more likely to hold true in most other cases, where I'd usually agree with you.
> 
> The musical result tells the tale. The emotional sensation(s) being conveyed by the artist is infact observable and can be correctly assimilated. If you don't feel this is the case, perhaps this is the fundamental reason you haven't done so (completely) or withdraw yourself from trying very hard to do so, or from more extensive analysis.


I'm just offering a different perspective, which I believe is valid, and Pinnock himself feels it is a "pastoral" work. You may believe this is not "correctly assimilated" of the emotions in the music, and I'm not here to change your mind.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Fair enough, I do agree with the "pastoral" interpretation as another aspect to the work.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

AfterHours said:


> Fair enough, I do agree with the "pastoral" interpretation as another aspect to the work.


Pastoral works seemed to be very much in vogue at the time maybe it was due to Vietnam war watergate or that life sucked in general at the time after all where do you go after youve walked on the moon


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm just offering a different perspective, which I believe is valid, and Pinnock himself feels it is a "pastoral" work. You may believe this is not "correctly assimilated" of the emotions in the music, and I'm not here to change your mind.


I also agree with Pinnock/you wholeheartedly that it is a (very) experimental work.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Pastoral works seemed to be very much in vogue at the time maybe it was due to Vietnam war watergate or that life sucked in general at the time after all where do you go after youve walked on the moon


Yes, of course! I have seen Rock Bottom described as the most lunar album ever (or similar wording). So maybe Wyatt was onto something...


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

I'd like to draw your attention to another, genial song by Robert Wyatt. It immediately struck me when I first heard it and I never forgot it. Maybe the musical aspect is somewhat less intereresting by itself but it's a great blend with the sung story of astonishment and alienation of society to how we treat living animals.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

And this one I like a lot musically.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Casebearer said:


> And this one I like a lot musically.


Thank you, Wyatt is never less than intriguing. Such a singular talent!


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Sea Song is precious, Alifb is profound, the rest is filler


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mathisdermaler said:


> Sea Song is precious, Alifb is profound, the rest is filler


I wouldn't be that harsh. There were at least 3 good songs.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

If you are comparing its pieces to any standard repertoire of "songs" and thinking of them as such, you've probably already begun losing your grip on the art of Rock Bottom. If you are relatively unfamiliar with experimental rock and jazz, with Syd Barrett/early Pink Floyd, with Wyatt's key compositions with Soft Machine, with his previous album End of an Ear, with Kevin Ayers' solo work (especially Shooting at the Moon), with the Canterbury, prog-rock scene in general, with jazz artists such as Carla Bley, Charles Mingus, Sun Ra, Weather Report and Keith Jarrett -- if you're unfamiliar with Dadaist and Surrealist Art (such as Dali, Ernst, Delvaux) and Gustav Klimt (Beethoven Frieze; Philosophy, Medicine and Jurisprudence; The Kiss) -- then Rock Bottom could very well be a pretty alien, bewildering experience that one might (not surprisingly) classify as "filler". Not that one couldn't draw that conclusion anyway, it's just far less likely if its art is more thoroughly understood, especially if one has familiarized him/herself with the above such artists' works. 

Films such as Murnau's Sunrise, Tarkovsky's Nostalghia, Mirror and Angelopoulos' Eternity and a Day, Rock albums such as Talk Talk's Spirit of Eden and Laughing Stock, the Jazz works of Anthony Davis, and even Classical works such as Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique, wouldn't hurt either.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Ah, Tarkovsky . Long time ago anybody mentioned him in my surroundings. I have a sudden urge of Nostalgia to those great film days.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> If you are comparing its pieces to any standard repertoire of "songs" and thinking of them as such, you've probably already begun losing your grip on the art of Rock Bottom. If you are relatively unfamiliar with experimental rock and jazz, with Syd Barrett/early Pink Floyd, with Wyatt's key compositions with Soft Machine, with his previous album End of an Ear, with Kevin Ayers' solo work (especially Shooting at the Moon), with the Canterbury, prog-rock scene in general, with jazz artists such as Carla Bley, Charles Mingus, Sun Ra, Weather Report and Keith Jarrett -- if you're unfamiliar with Dadaist and Surrealist Art (such as Dali, Ernst, Delvaux) and Gustav Klimt (Beethoven Frieze; Philosophy, Medicine and Jurisprudence; The Kiss) -- then Rock Bottom could very well be a pretty alien, bewildering experience that one might (not surprisingly) classify as "filler". Not that one couldn't draw that conclusion anyway, it's just far less likely if its art is more thoroughly understood, especially if one has familiarized him/herself with the above such artists' works.
> 
> Films such as Murnau's Sunrise, Tarkovsky's Nostalghia, Mirror and Angelopoulos' Eternity and a Day, albums such as Talk Talk's Spirit of Eden and Laughing Stock, and even Classical works such as Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique, wouldn't hurt either.


My belief is a piece of music must stand without extraneous references outside of the music itself. I wouldn't equate filler with bewildering, or inacessible music, but rather with less creative or substantial music.

This gives me an idea for a new thread


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> My belief is a piece of music must stand without extraneous references outside of the music itself. I wouldn't equate filler with bewildering, or inacessible music, but rather with less creative or substantial music.


It does stand as such. But, _like every work of art ever produced in human history_, it has emotional/conceptual/artistic precedents (intentional or not), that could help someone, such as yourself or anyone else, in assimilating it more thoroughly. But, of course, how would you know? Are you familiar with many/all of the works I mentioned? Rock Bottom is among the most creative works of art in the history of music, so that box is checked. Whether one thinks it's substantial can depend on several factors, most prominently knowing what is going on in the first place. To be able to experience and have affinity for something you need to know what is going on to begin with. Try caring much about what is happening in Syria or North Korea (or anything else) without first being informed about it ... of what is happening. Your (supposed) "belief" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Every single one of your favorite artists have plenty of so-called "extraneous" references that have assisted you in understanding them.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Casebearer said:


> Ah, Tarkovsky . Long time ago anybody mentioned him in my surroundings. I have a sudden urge of Nostalgia to those great film days.


http://www.talkclassical.com/49220-nostalghia-andrei-tarkovsky-1983-a.html

(Note that Part 2 was (for some reason) moved a few posts below Part 1 instead of directly beneath it. I'm trying to get this corrected by the Admins)


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> It does stand as such. But, _like every work of art ever produced in human history_, it has emotional/conceptual/artistic precedents (intentional or not), that could help someone, such as yourself or anyone else, in assimilating it more thoroughly. But, of course, how would you know? Are you familiar with many/all of the works I mentioned? Rock Bottom is among the most creative works of art in the history of music, so that box is checked. Whether one thinks it's substantial can depend on several factors, most prominently knowing what is going on in the first place. To be able to experience and have affinity for something you need to know what is going on to begin with. Try caring much about what is happening in Syria or North Korea (or anything else) without first being informed about it ... of what is happening. Your (supposed) "belief" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Every single one of your favorite artists have plenty of so-called "extraneous" references that have assisted you in understanding them.


I'm familar with almost all the works you listed, but don't feel most of them are relevant. Your last statement is true to some degree, as related to musical influences.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm familar with almost all the works you listed, but don't feel most of them are relevant. Your last statement is true to some degree.


Whatever Phil. Each time you argue with me, it gets better. On one hand you don't evaluate works/analyze them in-depth, yet you argue with someone that has ... as if you've done so yourself ... even though you haven't. It's an awkward, somewhat annoying experience from my end, having gone through the dedication and effort and experience of having done so over a period of several years and evaluating histories of art forms in detail, only to address "arguments" with someone that hasn't done the same. You are entitled to your views and I'm not denying you that, but why are you arguing with me (instead of discussing) on a work/subject(s) in which I have such experience and have evaluated in-depth? For amusement, maybe you should just go join the detailed discussions over on the thread about "Tristan & Isolde's follower", and argue about that, just to see how much patience I've actually had with this BS.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Whatever Phil. Each time you argue with me, it gets better. On one hand you don't evaluate works/analyze them in-depth, yet you argue with someone that has ... as if you've done so yourself ... even though you haven't. It's an awkward, somewhat annoying experience from my end, having gone through the dedication and effort and experience of having done so over a period of several years and evaluating histories of art forms in detail, only to address "arguments" with someone that hasn't done the same. You are entitled to your views and I'm not denying you that, but why are you arguing with me (instead of discussing) on a work/subject(s) in which I have such experience and have evaluated in-depth? For amusement, maybe you should just go join the detailed discussions over on the thread about "Tristan & Isolde's follower", and argue about that, just to see how much patience I've actually had with this BS.


I thought we were discussing, instead of arguing... i can stop anytime.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I wouldn't be that harsh. There were at least 3 good songs.


A Last Straw is okay


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mathisdermaler said:


> A Last Straw is okay


Just kidding, you are entitled to your former opinion.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> If you are comparing its pieces to any standard repertoire of "songs" and thinking of them as such, you've probably already begun losing your grip on the art of Rock Bottom. If you are relatively unfamiliar with experimental rock and jazz, with Syd Barrett/early Pink Floyd, with Wyatt's key compositions with Soft Machine, with his previous album End of an Ear, with Kevin Ayers' solo work (especially Shooting at the Moon), with the Canterbury, prog-rock scene in general, with jazz artists such as Carla Bley, Charles Mingus, Sun Ra, Weather Report and Keith Jarrett -- if you're unfamiliar with Dadaist and Surrealist Art (such as Dali, Ernst, Delvaux) and Gustav Klimt (Beethoven Frieze; Philosophy, Medicine and Jurisprudence; The Kiss) -- then Rock Bottom could very well be a pretty alien, bewildering experience that one might (not surprisingly) classify as "filler". Not that one couldn't draw that conclusion anyway, it's just far less likely if its art is more thoroughly understood, especially if one has familiarized him/herself with the above such artists' works.
> 
> Films such as Murnau's Sunrise, Tarkovsky's Nostalghia, Mirror and Angelopoulos' Eternity and a Day, Rock albums such as Talk Talk's Spirit of Eden and Laughing Stock, the Jazz works of Anthony Davis, and even Classical works such as Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique, wouldn't hurt either.


I'm not sure if you're talking to me or Phil, but you need to accept the fact that we just don't find it as profound as you do. I am extremely familiar with experimental rock and jazz. I worship at the feet of Beefheart and Faust. Judging by many of your posts, you are a big fan of Piero Scaruffi. So am I. I find him to be a wonderful tastemaker and champion of avant-garde music. His great taste has put me onto countless works I love in all arts. I have heard this album many times and used to adore it a few years ago. It has nothing to do with exposure, it is a matter of taste.

EDIT: ALSO! If you were wondering, I don't hate all Wyatt. Moon in June is a masterpiece! I adore it


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Just kidding, you are entitled to your former opinion.


Haha yes, but I do have to admit that song is a bit more than filler.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

mathisdermaler said:


> I'm not sure if you're talking to me or Phil, but you need to accept the fact that we just don't find it as profound as you do. I am extremely familiar with experimental rock and jazz. I worship at the feet of Beefheart and Faust. I have heard this album many times and used to adore it a few years ago. It has nothing to do with exposure, it is a matter of taste.
> 
> EDIT: ALSO! If you were wondering, I don't hate all Wyatt. Moon in June is a masterpiece! I adore it


It's not a matter of acceptance. What you like and don't like does not bother me. It's the lack of insight or discussion expressed in the claims. It's like: why did you post that in response to a pretty detailed and fairly thorough analysis? Now that you've explained your position a little more, it makes some more sense.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Re: Scaruffi ... Yes, for sure. If you visit my criteria page provided at the top of the Rock Bottom review/analysis, you may understand further where I am coming from on the album (if you don't already), and any of my other views should you encounter them in the future. The criteria page also addresses my frequent agreement with Scaruffi's selections. Glad you dig Captain Beefheart and Faust, and Moon in June


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I thought we were discussing, instead of arguing... i can stop anytime.


There has been some marginal discussion with you, just mostly arguing against a point I just made (but with very little content to supply your argument). Very little has been addressed from you about what I've written/said and also most of the views you state are based on an admitted lack of analysis which is not part of your modus operandi towards music/art. So, I'm not sure why I am supposed to take such a view into much consideration when there tends to be little, if any, explanation accompanying it, when you apparently think that one cannot evaluate the emotional conveyance of music/art for him/herself, and added to this (in first place) you don't engage yourself in the same level of evaluation and analysis that I have. To me, as an analogy it's sort of like, you've just taken a gander at the Sistine Chapel ceiling a few times, perhaps read some things about some of its general themes, and are now arguing with me about its merits. On one hand I understand that such a lack of evaluation would lead you to "disagreeing" but on the other, the two views are not comparable in terms of investment and insight, and gets annoying to keep discussing without you taking some more time to go evaluate the Sistine Chapel ceiling to try and see where I am coming from, and then coming back to discuss further. Or, if you're not interested enough in it to do so, maybe asking my why I feel this way and that way, etc, to better determine where I am coming from, and then, properly considered, perhaps an interesting discussion could arise.

Macleod was a pretty good example (in between a moment or two of contention between us) of providing insights and discussion, and looking further into where I was coming from, despite disagreeing with me on some points.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> There has been some marginal discussion with you, just mostly arguing against a point I just made (but with very little content to supply your argument). Very little has been addressed from you about what I've written/said and also most of the views you state are based on an admitted lack of analysis which is not part of your modus operandi towards music/art. So, I'm not sure why I am supposed to take such a view into much consideration when there tends to be little, if any, explanation accompanying it, when you apparently think that one cannot evaluate the emotional conveyance of music/art for him/herself, and added to this (in first place) you don't engage yourself in the same level of evaluation and analysis that I have. To me, as an analogy it's sort of like, you've just taken a gander at the Sistine Chapel ceiling a few times, perhaps read some things about some of its general themes, and are now arguing with me about its merits. On one hand I understand that such a lack of evaluation would lead you to "disagreeing" but on the other, the two views are not comparable in terms of investment and insight, and gets annoying to keep discussing without you taking some more time to go evaluate the Sistine Chapel ceiling to try and see where I am coming from, and then coming back to discuss further. Or, if you're not interested enough in it to do so, maybe asking my why I feel this way and that way, etc, to better determine where I am coming from, and then, properly considered, perhaps an interesting discussion could arise.


The thing is, similar to what Mathisdermaler said, you might have assumed I didn't take the time to analyze. When I wouldn't be putting my opinion out there unless I was reasonably sure I had something to back me up. It sounds like you feel anyone who listened to a piece of music as much as you would or shoukd arrive at the same conclusion as you, and when I arrive at something different, you say I didn't put enough thought into it. I probably have a totally different perception of and, more importantly, approach to music appreciation, than you. And I express as I see fit.

To me it seems you delve in and strive to hear whatever you possibly can out of the music, like a brainstorming of meanings, emotions, etc. My approach is to listen, giving the music the floor to present whatever ideas, and I evaluate it based on whether I'm convinced what is presented is logical, or not. As in this album, I don't come to the conclusion the music sounds melancholic, funereal, etc. The music appears to me to paint the landscape of the sea, and the lyrics, etc all point to something not melancholic, as the other writer and interviewer also noted. I don't take the sound, mood of the music at what i perceive to be face value, as I'm aware there may be sarcasm involved, which there isn't in this album's case.

It is up to the composer to bring up any surrealism, etc. that I'm supposed to hear. i'm not going to look specifically for those connections, when it's not called for.

Another thing is I don't have full trust, at least at the beginning, this composer is anybody that really knows what he/she is talking about. They might even bring up topics, just to impress the listener at how intellectual the composer tries to protray themself (every artist has goals and ambitions). But if they present half-baked ideas, that don't fully work out on their own, or in my experience is not a noteworthy view, then I'm not going to delve in further, then I take that artist as a fraud.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> The thing is, similar to what Mathisdermaler said, you might have assumed I didn't take the time to analyze. When I wouldn't be putting my opinion out there unless I was reasonably sure I had something to back me up. It sounds like you feel anyone who listened to a piece of music as much as you would or shoukd arrive at the same conclusion as you, and when I arrive at something different, you say I didn't put enough thought into it. I probably have a totally different perception of and, more importantly, approach to music appreciation, than you. And I express as I see fit.
> 
> To me it seems you delve in and strive to hear whatever you possibly can out of the music, like a brainstorming of meanings, emotions, etc. My approach is to listen, giving the music the floor to present whatever ideas, and I evaluate it based on whether I'm convinced what is presented is logical, or not. As in this album, I don't come to the conclusion the music sounds melancholic, funereal, etc. The music appears to me to paint the landscape of the sea, and the lyrics, etc all point to something not melancholic, as the other writer and interviewer also noted. I don't take the sound, mood of the music at what i perceive to be face value, as I'm aware there may be sarcasm involved, which there isn't in this album's case.


This is fine, except you should consider the following:

(a) you already said that you don't evaluate art in any great detail 
(b) you don't believe a work of art can be evaluated past the artists known intentions only 
(c) you don't provide much explanation of your views, while claiming they are valid in comparison to views that have infact been given great care and explanation.
(d) In sum, you're arguing against such analysis that you yourself haven't done or made an investment in, or even know "how" to do.

You obviously have a different approach to music appreciation, based on the results, but from my vantage point, it appears quite lazy to be honest. If you arrived at different conclusions but they were detailed and thoroughly considered and exhibited experience and explained as such, than I wouldn't mind at all. I might even learn something about what we were discussing!

The problem is, when I've asked you about your approach to music appreciation you haven't been able to explain it. You "just like what you like". This is fine, but not really useful in conversations, especially in discussing different points of view. On the other hand, I've provided you with pages of details about my views (criteria page, and in explanations of most every subsequent point taken up), and usually a pretty thorough analysis of what we were discussing, all of it in direct relation to my criteria so that there should be no question as to "why" or "how" -- even if I was short on time and couldn't go into depth as much as I wanted to -- I still explained my position (whether Newsom's Have One On Me, Rock Bottom, Trout Mask Replica, or Tarkovsky). So it starts to get to the point where I'm wondering if you're ever going to show the same effort. The "exchange of ideas" is wildly out of balance so to speak.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> This is fine, except you should consider the following:
> 
> (a) you already said that you don't evaluate art in any great detail
> (b) you don't believe a work of art can be evaluated past the artists known intentions only
> ...


I added some more text to my last post which may explain further. i don't agree I said I don't evaluate art in great detail, that may have been a misinterpretation, or miscommunication. Your point (b) is obvious to me a misinterpretation, since it is still fresh in my mind. If you go back, you will see that I said I don't think you can claim I haven't "correctly assimilated" an emotion in the music, since we the listener don't have the info to what the artist intended there to be, if even that (since the composer could possibly make a wrong choice in instrumentation, etc. that gives the wrong impression than he intended). Plus I did keep mentioning that a lot of rock critics don't actually analyse the music composition itself, and just go on wild tangents with perceived inferences, when I at least would analyse the musical composition as I've done with this album, Trout Mask, and the Beatles, already so far. If that still appears lazy to you, it doesn't really bother me, and I wouldn't try to convince you otherwise.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I added some more text to my last post which may explain further. i don't agree I said I don't evaluate art in great detail, that may have been a misinterpretation, or miscommunication. Your point (b) is obvious to me a misinterpretation, since it is still fresh in my mind. If you go back, you will see that I said I don't think you can claim I haven't "correctly assimilated" an emotion in the music, since we the listener don't have the info to what the artist intended there to be, if even that (since the composer could possibly make a wrong choice in instrumentation, etc. that gives the wrong impression than he intended). Plus I did keep mentioning that a lot of rock critics don't actually analyse the music composition itself, and just go on wild tangents with perceived inferences, when I at least would analyse the musical composition as I've done with this album, Trout Mask, and the Beatles, already so far. If that still appears lazy to you, it doesn't really bother me, and I wouldn't try to convince you otherwise.


Fair enough, I do disagree that you've assimilated these works as much as you now claim (I also don't mean that you should have any obligation to do so). I do feel, based on what you've provided, that it is highly unlikely that you've done so with Rock Bottom or Trout Mask Replica (or Have One On Me, fwiw), but I'm not going to go back through our previous messages to try and prove the point, as it's not that important and not time I'm willing to spend any further -- and I don't have any confidence that it would be a worthwhile discourse if I chose to. So, if you disagree with me on that, that's totally fine, and we should just move on.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

I may choose to discuss further, the points you've added to your previous message. Possibly later.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> To me it seems you delve in and strive to hear whatever you possibly can out of the music, like a brainstorming of meanings, emotions, etc.


Nevermind, I started responding but most of what I was typing is an unneeded post. Was basically just me repeating my criteria page. If you want to understand how I evaluate music/art, just read my criteria page. That's it, in its simplicity (though the criteria and method, applied well, accounts for everything a work of art could express).

The only thing I might add, without over-complicating my explanation of it, would be that the more art one consumes, the more accurate (and rapid/efficient) his/her assimilation is likely to be (by "art" I primarily mean the more emotionally/conceptually extraordinary and singular works; by "consumes" I mean actually _assimilating_ them, not just _casually_ "consuming" them).


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> As in this album, I don't come to the conclusion the music sounds melancholic, funereal, etc. The music appears to me to paint the landscape of the sea, and the lyrics, etc all point to something not melancholic, as the other writer and interviewer also noted. I don't take the sound, mood of the music at what i perceive to be face value, as I'm aware there may be sarcasm involved, which there isn't in this album's case.
> 
> It is up to the composer to bring up any surrealism, etc. that I'm supposed to hear. i'm not going to look specifically for those connections, when it's not called for.


Again, you are incorrect in missing this and your analysis is quite incomplete. It is very easy to spot the melancholic tones and atmosphere of the music, and I think someone even vaguely familiar with emotional expressions in music would notice it almost instantaneously, and probably even be expecting it beforehand by the album's title being something like "Rock Bottom". It is probably the least ambiguous aspect of the work and this is the main part of your argument that makes me question if you've listened to the album more than maybe once, or if more than that, whether you've paid much attention to what you're hearing. This aspect to the work is unmistakable, lyrics or not. Are you listening to the whole sound of the work or limiting your attention to just one part? Do you not hear the descending notes lamenting failure that open Sea Song? Do you not hear the lamenting cries and the "submerged choir" Wyatt breaks off into over the last portion of song? Do you not hear the tentative, slow, aching, melancholy, minor tones of the instrumentation (and the keyboard notes that keep gathering themselves during each break, then each time Wyatt laments/cries out)? Do you not hear the resigned tone of all of the music throughout this song and the rest of the album (vocals and instrumentation)? Do you not hear how this has "introverted" the instrumentation as opposed to "extroverting" it? Do you not hear the lamentation in the vocals and lyrics? Do you not hear the near death (catatonic, cardiac arrest, comatose, narcoleptic) like states Wyatt goes through in the album? Do you not hear the vocals and lyrics in track 3 (his panicked lamentation, sorrow, begging for forgiveness towards Alfreda). Do you not hear the references he makes to her in Alifib/Alife? Pleading to her not to abandon him/each other? "I can't forsake you" ... Pleading/referring to her as his source of food: "Alife my larder" ... over and over again as if he can't be heard (until she finally retorts at the end of Alife), all the while indicating his undying childish bond and motherly dependency from her: 'my source of food, please do not abandon me', "Confiscate ... or make you late" ... In Alifib, do you not hear his breathing in the background in panicked cardiac arrest (or perhaps "going into labor")? Do you not hear the melancholic tones and touching play of the keyboard leading up to these vocals? Do you not hear the hypnotic, ominous, lugubrious, suspenseful, pulsating instrumentation "flashing" in and out of the background of the songs? Etc. Your insight into the album seems to begin and end at (part of) Sea Song while ignoring/dismissing the rest and seemingly no mention or awareness of its content, particularly its 2nd half (even though it's the most original, creative and emotionally/conceptually substantial section of the work.)

Re: Surreal aspects to the work ... A cursory study of surrealist/dadaist art would answer this for you. Even without that: does what is happening sound like "the usual" or would you categorize much of it as bizarre? Is it just your normal, every day "walking-along-the-sidewalk-on-my-way-to-work-can't-believe-how-in-love-I-am-Good-Day-Sunshine" content, or is it disorienting, having the hallucinatory quality and fantastic, otherworldly imagery and logic of a dream?

Here's an article I just looked up that may steer you to further consider this as a key aspect of Wyatt's work: http://pitchfork.com/features/artic...favorite-cult-artists-favorite-pseudoscience/


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Again, i hardly think your interpretation is authoritative. I was just providing my different perspective. I don't feel compelled, or that it is constructive, to further address those kind of questions, or claims. I just found the part on the discussion of the title a newer topic and interesting. Yes, my first reaction to a title like that is expecting doom and gloom, and is the probably the gloomiest part of the album. But the most direct reference to it is in the Last Straw, and it compares it to the bottom of the sea. And tells his love to go dive down with him together into the water. The rock bottom is not used in any way ominously. It was used to signify the bottom depths of their being. I invite any listener to listen and read with that in mind as a likely interpretation. The English, as Macleod said, use words differently than North Americans may be more used to. And I believe the references he gave earlier are a good insight on how the English express certain things at the time.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Whatever the case may be, Wyatt was an interesting guy. I'm not here to try to convince anyone I'm right, etc. but just to offer some ideas. Here is an interview Wyatt gave and talked about his accident, and the misunderstanding many people had with his album. He interestingly even felt that the accident saved his life, since he became an alcoholic and was reckless at the time of the accident.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...is-up-when-youve-hit-rock-bottom-1241992.html

https://readtiger.com/wkp/en/Robert_Wyatt


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Whatever the case may be, Wyatt was an interesting guy. I'm not here to try to convince anyone I'm right, etc. but just to offer some ideas. Here is an interview Wyatt gave and talked about his accident, and the misunderstanding many people had with his album. He interestingly even felt that the accident saved his life, since he became an alcoholic and was reckless at the time of the accident.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...is-up-when-youve-hit-rock-bottom-1241992.html
> 
> https://readtiger.com/wkp/en/Robert_Wyatt


Even years later, when talking about the accident and album, Wyatt contradicts himself, ambiguous and uncertain of his state at the time; "It took me a long time to get over it"/"I wasn't traumatised by it" or "my depression wasn't anything to do with it, or not that I'm conscious of". Etc. The answers he gives, even if they are taken as some sort of "analysis" of the music (even though they're just passing, casual thoughts about it), if anything, simply vindicate my interpretation. "Suddenly I felt like a dead person looking back on their life, and I thought, `I used to do so many things!'"... "It was a lot of work for her because she had spent all that time trying to avoid having a baby and she ends up with this incontinent giant, this alcoholic thing." Though an interesting read, Wyatt is not known to shed much clarity on his work.

Re: "Rock Bottom" title ... this is simply a passing reference "that one would be expecting melancholy from such a title", and not even an important part of what I said, nor is it part of the music in the album, yet is the only aspect you talk about. Hence, my previous statements about our discussions. Fwiw, and from what I understand "Rock Bottom" can also be seen as a reference to his parapeligic state and/or the "bottom of the sea". If you don't think it's a play on words with the definition of "rock bottom" also in mind, as with much of the ambiguity of the work, you are kidding yourself.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Again, i hardly think your interpretation is authoritative. I was just providing my different perspective. I don't feel compelled, or that it is constructive, to further address those kind of questions, or claims. I just found the part on the discussion of the title a newer topic and interesting. Yes, my first reaction to a title like that is expecting doom and gloom, and is the probably the gloomiest part of the album. But the most direct reference to it is in the Last Straw, and it compares it to the bottom of the sea. And tells his love to go dive down with him together into the water. The rock bottom is not used in any way ominously. It was used to signify the bottom depths of their being. I invite any listener to listen and read with that in mind as a likely interpretation. The English, as Macleod said, use words differently than North Americans may be more used to. And I believe the references he gave earlier are a good insight on how the English express certain things at the time.


Phil, sorry, you simply haven't evaluated the album in depth at all and this has been clear in both your evasive replies and your incomplete analysis of the work, also colored by an unwillingness/inability to delve very far into it or communicate much about it.

I'm simply going to re-post what I said. I don't care whether you think it's "authoritative" or not. At some point, I recommend simply listening to the album and checking what I say against what is happening, and seeing for yourself...



AfterHours said:


> Again, you are incorrect in missing this and your analysis is quite incomplete. It is very easy to spot the melancholic tones and atmosphere of the music, and I think someone even vaguely familiar with emotional expressions in music would notice it almost instantaneously, and probably even be expecting it beforehand by the album's title being something like "Rock Bottom". It is probably the least ambiguous aspect of the work and this is the main part of your argument that makes me question if you've listened to the album more than maybe once, or if more than that, whether you've paid much attention to what you're hearing. This aspect to the work is unmistakable, lyrics or not. Are you listening to the whole sound of the work or limiting your attention to just one part? Do you not hear the descending notes lamenting failure that open Sea Song? Do you not hear the lamenting cries and the "submerged choir" Wyatt breaks off into over the last portion of song? Do you not hear the tentative, slow, aching, melancholy, minor tones of the instrumentation (and the keyboard notes that keep gathering themselves during each break, then each time Wyatt laments/cries out)? Do you not hear the resigned tone of all of the music throughout this song and the rest of the album (vocals and instrumentation)? Do you not hear how this has "introverted" the instrumentation as opposed to "extroverting" it? Do you not hear the lamentation in the vocals and lyrics? Do you not hear the near death (catatonic, cardiac arrest, comatose, narcoleptic) like states Wyatt goes through in the album? Do you not hear the vocals and lyrics in track 3 (his panicked lamentation, sorrow, begging for forgiveness towards Alfreda). Do you not hear the references he makes to her in Alifib/Alife? Pleading to her not to abandon him/each other? "I can't forsake you" ... Pleading/referring to her as his source of food: "Alife my larder" ... over and over again as if he can't be heard (until she finally retorts at the end of Alife), all the while indicating his undying childish bond and motherly dependency from her: 'my source of food, please do not abandon me', "Confiscate ... or make you late" ... In Alifib, do you not hear his breathing in the background in panicked cardiac arrest (or perhaps "going into labor")? Do you not hear the melancholic tones and touching play of the keyboard leading up to these vocals? Do you not hear the hypnotic, ominous, lugubrious, suspenseful, pulsating instrumentation "flashing" in and out of the background of the songs? Etc. Your insight into the album seems to begin and end at (part of) Sea Song while ignoring/dismissing the rest and seemingly no mention or awareness of its content, particularly its 2nd half (even though it's the most original, creative and emotionally/conceptually substantial section of the work.)
> 
> Re: Surreal aspects to the work ... A cursory study of surrealist/dadaist art would answer this for you. Even without that: does what is happening sound like "the usual" or would you categorize much of it as bizarre? Is it just your normal, every day "walking-along-the-sidewalk-on-my-way-to-work-can't-believe-how-in-love-I-am-Good-Day-Sunshine" content, or is it disorienting, having the hallucinatory quality and fantastic, otherworldly imagery and logic of a dream?
> 
> Here's an article I just looked up that may steer you to further consider this as a key aspect of Wyatt's work: http://pitchfork.com/features/artic...favorite-cult-artists-favorite-pseudoscience/


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Your "complete" analysis doesn't include the pastoral elements in the work, or incorporate all the meaning of "rocky bottom" as in the Last Straw as I see it. You may not like the idea, but I think it is possible for someone to hear a work a hundred times, and someone else who has different experiences, can listen to something once and still may be able to find some insight to the piece (which is not me). Personally I have listened quite a lot to it in the past, where I was able to recognize the sea painting in the instrumentation. I didn't evade your questions, I already answered them previously that the music is portraying the sea rather than trying to communicate a deep melancholy. But you keep asking similar questions to which I already gave my answer, the answer which you obviously think is invalid. Looking at the big picture, you have your analysis, I have mine. The issue is you think you "correctly assimilated" the piece, while those who don't agree with you haven't, and must not have examined it in detail.

p.s. I do hear some wistfulness in the music, and the lyrics, but that emotion doesn't strike me as melancholic.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Your "complete" analysis doesn't include the pastoral elements in the work, or incorporate all the meaning of "rocky bottom" as in the Last Straw as I see it. You may not like the idea, but I think it is possible for someone to hear a work a hundred times, and someone else who has different experiences, can listen to something once and still may be able to find some insight to the piece (which is not me). Personally I have listened quite a lot to it in the past, where I was able to recognize the sea painting in the instrumentation. I didn't evade your questions, I already answered them previously that the music is portraying the sea rather than trying to communicate a deep melancholy. But you keep asking similar questions to which I already gave my answer, the answer which you obviously think is invalid. Looking at the big picture, you have your analysis, I have mine. The issue is you think you "correctly assimilated" the piece, while those who don't agree with you haven't, and must not have examined it in detail.
> 
> p.s. I do hear some wistfulness in the music, and the lyrics, but that emotion doesn't strike me as melancholic.


Sorry, you are not listening to the work at hand, and are a poor judge of emotion (and accompanying lyrics) with this work, which does not lead me to believe that you have much focused/attentive experience with it, as I assume you are rather intelligent and I don't think you would have missed this if you had. As I've already said previously in the thread, there is definitely more detailed interpretation possible in the work than what I've written, the review/analysis of which was intentionally left as a foundation of themes/emotions running through the work so that discussion could more easily take place, and not as a note-to-note and lyric-to-lyric analysis of every single element (which would be unnecessarily tedious anyway). But even the review/analysis makes mention of there being emotional dichotomies present throughout the work, in emotions running between happiness and melancholy, and so forth. It does not have to mention the exact word "pastoral" to express or allude to the same/similar idea. "Pastoral" is not a prominent element to the work and, in a concise analysis, does not deserve mention. You have not addressed in any way, how the music is not melancholic/depressed, etc. And you will not be able to. Nothing supports your argument that it isn't, which is why you have little to nothing to say on the matter except "I don't see it that way", "That's just your view" (and variations of such), "It's just an instrumental coloration of the sea" Well, okay, I actually agree with that (as already mentioned). Now, is it a melancholy, lugubrious, ominous view and correlation with the sea? If he just wanted it to sound like the sea, why didn't he just record waves crashing? But has instead engaged his keyboards and accompanying instrumentation in a deep trench of sorrowful, lamented, melancholic, ominous, introverted minor tones, chords, keys and mysterious tension?

Definition of wistful: "full of yearning or desire tinged with melancholy; musingly sad" ... "characterized by melancholy; longing; yearning" ... "pensive, especially in a melancholy way" ... ... Okay then, whatever, glad we clarified our "differences" here


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Sorry, you are not listening to the work at hand, and are a poor judge of emotion (and accompanying lyrics) with this work, which does not lead me to believe that you have much focused/attentive experience with it, as I assume you are rather intelligent and I don't think you would have missed this if you had. As I've already said previously in the thread, there is definitely more detailed interpretation possible in the work than what I've written, the review/analysis of which was intentionally left as a foundation of themes/emotions running through the work so that discussion could more easily take place, and not as a note-to-note and lyric-to-lyric analysis of every single element (which would be unnecessarily tedious anyway). But even the review/analysis makes mention of there being emotional dichotomies present throughout the work, in emotions running between happiness and melancholy, and so forth. It does not have to mention the exact word "pastoral" to express or allude to the same/similar idea. "Pastoral" is not a prominent element to the work and, in a concise analysis, does not deserve mention. You have not addressed in any way, how the music is not melancholic/depressed, etc. And you will not be able to. Nothing supports your argument that it isn't, which is why you have little to nothing to say on the matter except "I don't see it that way", "That's just your view" (and variations of such), "It's just an instrumental coloration of the sea" Well, okay, I actually agree with that (as already mentioned). Now, is it a melancholy, lugubrious, ominous view and correlation with the sea? If he just wanted it to sound like the sea, why didn't he just record waves crashing? But has instead engaged his keyboards and accompanying instrumentation in a deep trench of sorrowful, lamented, melancholic, ominous, introverted minor tones, chords, keys and mysterious tension?
> 
> Definition of wistful: "full of yearning or desire tinged with melancholy; musingly sad" ... "characterized by melancholy; longing; yearning" ... "pensive, especially in a melancholy way" ... ... Okay then, whatever, glad we clarified our "differences" here


No, I can't "prove" that it is not melancholic, just as you can't really prove its pastoral element is not prominent in the work. Somone can say the music is rapturous and filled with great hope, and no one can prove that person wrong. Wistful in some definitions leave out the melancholy, and is described as pensive. Nobody can guarantee the work doesn't mean this or that, not even the composer, he can only say it was not intended. Possibly by painting the picture of the sea through he music, he also made it sound melancholic to some. In answer to your question why he didn't just record waves to get the sea picture across, it is a lot more interesting and challenging with painting it with music. Your question could be analogous to why do people still paint landscapes? Why not just take a photograph?

As to your claim of me being a poor judge of emotion, I don't take offense, since I know it's not true. For example I had correctly assimilated before comparing notes with anyone, at least in Walter's view, who probably knew him better than anyone, that the final movement of Mahler's ninth symphony is not a statement in sorrow and defiance as many claim, but a peaceful acceptance. I'm also very familiar with poetry, so rock lyrics, don't pose much of a challenge.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> No, I can't "prove" that it is not melancholic, just as you can't really prove its pastoral element is not prominent in the work. Somone can say the music is rapturous and filled with great hope, and no one can prove that person wrong. Wistful in some definitions leave out the melancholy, and is described as pensive. Nobody can guarantee the work doesn't mean this or that, not even the composer, he can only say it was not intended. Possibly by painting the picture of the sea through he music, he also made it sound melancholic to some. In answer to your question why he didn't just record waves to get the sea picture across, it is a lot more interesting and challenging with painting it with music. Your question could be analogous to why do people still paint landscapes? Why not just take a photograph?
> 
> As to your claim of me being a poor judge of emotion, I don't take offense, since I know it's not true. For example I had correctly assimilated before comparing notes with anyone, at least in Walter's view, who probably knew him better than anyone, that the final movement of Mahler's ninth symphony is not a statement in sorrow and defiance as many claim, but a peaceful acceptance. I'm also very familiar with poetry, so rock lyrics, don't pose much of a challenge.


I've already substantiated my insights in enough detail to be understood and compared with the music at hand. I stand by my assertions 100% that you have produced an incompetent analysis of the emotional conveyance of the work, and in large part you have not addressed my insights nor substantiated your own. Whether it's "wistful" or "melancholic" or "wistfully melancholic" I'll let you figure it out for yourself. If you feel the album is purely or prominently pastoral (but no longer wistful?), as in: "idyllic, picturesque, happy, peaceful evocations of nature" then it is no wonder you will not address the 2nd half of the album as, aside from its seaward/nautical aspects, it bears virtually no resemblance to such a claim -- if it is infact your claim -- and not just a passing, miscellaneous insight about the album from Pinnock that has now become generalized as "thorough analysis". If by "pastoral" you are referring to the seaward nature evoked by the album and the residues of ambiguous serenity/happiness in various parts (but not prominent), then of course I agree as already noted, but that is only some of what pastoral means and does not justify such a concept reaching "prominence" in regard to the whole work and its emotional conveyance. Compare to prominently pastoral works such as Vivaldi's Four Seasons or Beethoven's 6th and you will surely (hopefully?) see the difference in evocations and tones and the atmospheres of the music at hand.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

One thing is this thread really sparked me into digging up some more commentary on the piece. Personally I don't care the opinion you have of mine. Check out Wyatt's response on the meaning of the title when asked, and alludes to my theory (fact?) of rock critics over-intellectuallizing. He also made a distinction between nostalgic and funerary of the album cover.

Q: why did you call Rock Bottom Rock Bottom?
"I've no idea ! I think people see it as far more symbolic than the one I wanted to put in it."

http://parlhot.com/a-lirelivre/entretiens/robert-wyatt-rock-bottom-2/

Oh, and what was Sea Song primarily about? He also goes into that. You be the judge.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> One thing is this thread really sparked me into digging up some more commentary on the piece. Personally I don't care the opinion you have of mine. Check out Wyatt's response on the meaning of the title when asked, and alludes to my theory (fact?) of rock critics over-intellectuallizing. He also made a distinction between nostalgic and funerary of the album cover.
> 
> Q: why did you call Rock Bottom Rock Bottom?
> "I've no idea ! I think people see it as far more symbolic than the one I wanted to put in it."
> ...


He says in various interviews that he was in a drugged trance and euphoric state during the recording of the album. Over a period of years, he has contradicted himself several times about the work's content and generally just says something along the lines of "it just came out that way" "I was in a state of euphoria and it's hard to say what was really meant" etc. If I find the time to link to some of these or provide misc quotes I may do so. I think it's probable that he can't quite remember what happened due to his condition and mental state at the time, and that it did sort of just come out through a more "subconscious" inspiration and streams-of-consciousness of emotions and ideas. I'm not a proponent of drugs or such states at all, but from a purely musical/artistic perspective, we are lucky to have the album in the singular, completely inimitable, never to be replicated emotional conveyances and state in which it arrived.

NOTE: I can't read or tell if the interview you linked to is one I've seen before as it won't translate to english on my computer (not sure why, its a very rare case of refusing such). I might try it later on my laptop or my phone.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> One thing is this thread really sparked me into digging up some more commentary on the piece. Personally I don't care the opinion you have of mine. Check out Wyatt's response on the meaning of the title when asked, and alludes to my theory (fact?) of rock critics over-intellectuallizing. He also made a distinction between nostalgic and funerary of the album cover.
> 
> Q: why did you call Rock Bottom Rock Bottom?
> "I've no idea ! I think people see it as far more symbolic than the one I wanted to put in it."
> ...


Ok, there, I was able to translate it now. Certainly one of his better interviews. I would say everything he says seems to match either generally or specifically (sometimes with more detail as it is from his perspective) with how I feel about the album, and although I didn't have a lot of time to spend going through it, I am pretty sure I agree with what he's said in relation to the work.

In going through it, these stood out as the most useful...

A "disclaimer" from Wyatt, even though I agree with everything, I think, in this interview:

"So the fact is there: it all goes back a long way and the memory is not all the time reliable. It is partly something we consciously build. So I can not be 100% sure that what I'm telling you is consistent with what really happened."

Regarding Sea Song:

"For example, I noticed the relationship that their blood talks with the rhythm of the tides. In Sea Song , I was referring to the fact that women have menstrual cycles, that their bodies cleanse themselves from their blood and that they can be affected by these changes. Because of this, they are connected to the moon."
...

Furthermore, about the album:

"It must be borne in mind that all life comes from the oceans. We are water creatures who are trying to survive on earth. This is obvious but in my imagination we have somewhere inherited the ancestral memory of having been marine animals. But it can also be related to the fact that we spent the first nine months of our lives in a pocket of water in our mother's womb. That would explain our privileged connection with water."

In regards to the cover/title "Rock Bottom":

"Alfie and I are passionate about these drawings and we started looking for old people talking about underwater life and people discovering these animals that really live at the bottom. Because there is a whole life that moves to the bottom of the oceans. In a sense, for us it is stranger than extraterrestrial life because there we are sure that there is a whole zone where strange beings testify of another way of life that takes place here on the same planet."

As a note, I've never claimed or considered the album cover to be funereal, if that's what you were inferring.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

A snippet I ran across that may be of interest. Re: his biography (https://www.amazon.com/Different-Every-Time-Authorised-Biography/dp/1846687594) with O'Dair that Wyatt collaborated on...

Like Barrett, Wyatt borrowed from a tradition of English vaudeville and the rueful melancholy of Edward Lear to create his own surreal world. But the self-mockery and choirboy sweetness of his voice began to grate on the keyboardist Ratledge and the bassist Hopper and in 1971 Wyatt left to form Matching Mole (a pun on the French machine molle, "soft machine"). A year later, in 1972, he met his future wife, Alfie Benge, an illustrator, lyricist and film assistant born in Austria in 1940.

Alfie was working in Venice on the set of Nicolas Roeg's Don't Look Now when Wyatt fell from the window. The supernatural film, with its disorientating use of cross-cutting and aquatic imagery, may have influenced the making of Rock Bottom. Certainly, Alfie's contribution to her husband's music is "woefully underappreciated", as O'Dair notes. She is responsible for a good many of the lyrics, designs the album artwork and, not least, gives moral support.

Not every woman would have stayed with Wyatt after the fall, O'Dair suggests. In the course of making his solo albums he suffered from depression and became increasingly alcoholic, even suicidal.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> He says in various interviews that he was in a drugged trance and euphoric state during the recording of the album. Over a period of years, he has contradicted himself several times about the work's content and generally just says something along the lines of "it just came out that way" "I was in a state of euphoria and it's hard to say what was really meant" etc. If I find the time to link to some of these or provide misc quotes I may do so. I think it's probable that he can't quite remember what happened due to his condition and mental state at the time, and that it did sort of just come out through a more "subconscious" inspiration and streams-of-consciousness of emotions and ideas. I'm not a proponent of drugs or such states at all, but from a purely musical/artistic perspective, we are lucky to have the album in the singular, completely inimitable, never to be replicated emotional conveyances and state in which it arrived.
> 
> NOTE: I can't read or tell if the interview you linked to is one I've seen before as it won't translate to english on my computer (not sure why, its a very rare case of refusing such). I might try it later on my laptop or my phone.


In a state of euphoria, as in funereal? I'll stand with my incompetent analysis.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> In a state of euphoria, as in funereal? I'll stand with my incompetent analysis.


I don't think you're serious, but if you are, even a little, you've forgotten what we were arguing about which was your initial complete denial of the melancholy side of the album, (that has gradually become an acknowledgement of the "wistful" side of the album)

In short, I was _not_ arguing with you about the analysis/insights that you _have_ included. I was arguing about the aspects you were denying, what was lacking. I've agreed all along with the euphoric and happy side of the album (and the nautical, seaward aspects you mentioned). Where I think your analysis is selling the album short is in its denial of the melancholy, resigned, mournful side of the work (though there doesn't any longer seem to be much of a denial of this).

From my review/analysis:

"Arranged as a complete bout of stream-of-consciousness, blossoming from a gradually upending kaleidoscope of succumbing emotional episodes and cast from a mass density of instrumental brotherhood, Rock Bottom is an extraordinary confluence of seamless, ambiguous states of mind..."

"Wyatt assumes an inexplicable plethora of emotional states, galvanized by ascents through euphoric chaos and harrowing nightmares halfway between Surrealist and Dadaist predicaments."

"...troubled and content, sorrowed and ecstatic, lonely and distant yet welcoming, meditative and perplexed, enigmatic yet open, all at once."



AfterHours said:


> Re: your brief analysis of the latter half of the album ... I agree with your brief analysis there. I think that you think I have claimed, perhaps by the simple fact I've posted a review/analysis, that there is _no more_ to say about the album than what I've written. That is very definitely not the case. The review/analysis is quite short and intentionally left open to further insights that could be drawn from it. I could easily write several pages about the album -- or even more if I wanted to delve further for the reader into Dadaist and Surrealist art and The Soft Machine and how Moon in June and Las Vegas Tengo are precursors to the album, and Syd Barrett was a likely influence, and how Kevin Ayers' Shooting at the Moon ... ... etc. There is PLENTY further analysis that could be done on any angle of the album: from the euphoric, happy angle to the most depressed, funereal angles, and everything in between. The point is, it's all there. The mistake that people make, in my opinion would be only taking one angle: "it's a happy album"... "it's a sad album" etc. If you re-read the review you will find that I've already mentioned its ambiguity, its encapsulation of seemingly all emotions, the multitide of dichotomies the album is traversing, and how Wyatt's voice sounds multi-emotional simultaneously ...





AfterHours said:


> Yes, Wyatt recorded the album after the tragedy, while in euphoric states (Probably also on pain medications? Perhaps other drugs?) which could account for the strange unity, ambiguity and fluctuation between happiness (and facets thereof) and melancholy (and facets thereof) that pervades the work. I think it is likely that the work is colored by this combination of post-tragedy sadness and euphoria, of helplessness and resignation, of a sense of undying bond, love and "motherly dependency" with Alfreda, of an urge to escape reality, to swim off into the sea (especially now that one can't walk), an urge to reset or be reborn, and so forth.


Euphoria: an exaggerated feeling of physical and mental well-being, especially when not justified by external reality. Euphoria may be induced by drugs such as opioids, amphetamines, and alcohol and is also a feature of mania.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> http://parlhot.com/a-lirelivre/entretiens/robert-wyatt-rock-bottom-2/


Thanks for the link. One of the things this confirms is that musicians - perhaps especially "serious" musicians - do not always write with a precise meaning for every word, every note that builds to a coherent whole. They also rely more on the contributions of others than we sometimes realise. And they acknowledge that they do not always fully realise in their completed product what they had in mind when they started.

I like _Rock Bottom _(and Wyatt's other work) more because of his playfulness - he likes puns, and _Rock Bottom _offers at least three ambiguities - and eccentricity than because of any serious intent to convey a single, whole worldview or philosophy. Having said that, I like being in the company of Wyatt-as-musician. I might not like being in the company of Wyatt-as-man.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Thanks for the link. One of the things this confirms is that musicians - perhaps especially "serious" musicians - do not always write with a precise meaning for every word, every note that builds to a coherent whole. They also rely more on the contributions of others than we sometimes realise. And they acknowledge that they do not always fully realise in their completed product what they had in mind when they started.
> 
> I like _Rock Bottom _(and Wyatt's other work) more because of his playfulness - he likes puns, and _Rock Bottom _offers at least three ambiguities - and eccentricity than because of any serious intent to convey a single, whole worldview or philosophy. Having said that, I like being in the company of Wyatt-as-musician. I might not like being in the company of Wyatt-as-man.


Yes, I agree. That is one of the more interesting interviews of him that I've seen.

Re: Wyatt-as-man, in the company of ... Yeah, I don't think I'd want to be either. Per his biography he was an alcoholic for 40+ years (until recently), and was quite depressed and suicidal after the fall that left him in a wheelchair. And he's been through bouts of depression and suicidal tendencies various times since. Despite his personal troubles and the difficulties this would've no doubt caused for those around him, I'm glad he pushed through (including apparently overcoming his alcoholism), leaving us such a singular body of work (not just his solo works, but also with Soft Machine before the accident). And I'm glad he is able to add his strange, humorous bent/eccentricity (and Jarry etc-inspired Dada/Surrealism) to his works, making them even more singular and compelling than they might have been otherwise.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

How do we know Wyatt even wanted to express any of his personal troubles in the music/lyrics? I can think of many works of music that reveal opposite of a composer's character and personal state of mind. Someone who is depressed may want to write something happy, and vice versa. Very commonplace in my experience. The lyrics don't sound obviously melancholic in any way to me. I'd say anyone trying to draw it out of those is looking for a needle in a haystack, and is not applying a balanced perspective. The only one that is more ambiguous is Red Riding Hood, where symbolically he may be the wolf. 

As before the music doesn't sound obviously melancholic at all. I admit the first time I heard the Sea Song, I found it to sound emotionally ambiguous, but it is common with all experimental prog rock. When I realise the underwater theme, and listening to the lyrics, i ruled out the melancholy aspect. The title as Wyatt points out means nothing, but is related to the ocean bottom if anything. You can say there is some attachment the title has to the rest of the work, as in your previous attempt to discredit me, or that there is some subconscious effect on his other writing. I would say it is the other way around on this listener. The title introduced preconceptions in what you and some others hear in the music and lyrics, when it is not there. It could have the subliminal effect of your interpretation of all the music and lyrics. As I said, the title first made me expect some doom and gloom. But I quickly came to realize it is not there, and if so only in the wistful degree. That interview with Wyatt vindicates my view. This interview cames a decade before that book by Marcus came out. i think those basic things like the Sea song and the title would have stuck more clearly in his mind.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

An interpretation is just drawing certain conclusions. I don't think it is really so important it is absolutely right or wrong. I'm more interested in the way of interpretation. Is it doing the songwriter justice by obtaining a catch-all interpretation, so as not to miss any possible meaning even if it is unlikely? Or is it better to obtain a more accurate interpretation by ruling out what is not clearly stated? Does the songwriter have a certain obligation to make things clear enough? Or is it acceptable that he makes things ambiguous, intentionally or not, and generate attention? These questions could be interesting for discussion.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> How do we know Wyatt even wanted to express any of his personal troubles in the music/lyrics? I can think of many works of music that reveal opposite of a composer's character and personal state of mind. Someone who is depressed may want to write something happy, and vice versa. Very commonplace in my experience. The lyrics don't sound obviously melancholic in any way to me. I'd say anyone trying to draw it out of those is looking for a needle in a haystack, and is not applying a balanced perspective. The only one that is more ambiguous is Red Riding Hood, where symbolically he may be the wolf.
> 
> As before the music doesn't sound obviously melancholic at all. I admit the first time I heard the Sea Song, I found it to sound emotionally ambiguous, but it is common with all experimental prog rock. When I realise the underwater theme, and listening to the lyrics, i ruled out the melancholy aspect. The title as Wyatt points out means nothing, but is related to the ocean bottom if anything. You can say there is some attachment the title has to the rest of the work, as in your previous attempt to discredit me, or that there is some subconscious effect on his other writing. I would say it is the other way around on this listener. The title introduced preconceptions in what you and some others hear in the music and lyrics, when it is not there. It could have the subliminal effect of your interpretation of all the music and lyrics. As I said, the title first made me expect some doom and gloom. But I quickly came to realize it is not there, and if so only in the wistful degree. That interview with Wyatt vindicates my view. This interview cames a decade before that book by Marcus came out. i think those basic things like the Sea song and the title would have stuck more clearly in his mind.


The melancholy states throughout the album are completely unmistakable and I'm not sure why you do not hear them. Go figure. Over a period of 12 years of discussing the work, you are the first person I've known that could not hear it. I do wholeheartedly agree with you regarding the seaward and euphoric aspects to the work. But I do find it quite incompetent on your part, in terms of an ability to recognize emotion through music, to continually miss the melancholy, lamenting, wistful (or however else it could be termed/described) aspects to the work, but who am I to judge? You are welcome to hear it as you will.

From a musical perspective, it actually does not matter to me that his depression and suicidal tendencies and alcoholism are being revealed by his biography. I don't find this adds any insight into Rock Bottom. The drugged out euphoria and intense melancholy states are all over the work already. An artist does not have to be "in" such states to "express" such states, so even if Wyatt had been happy as a clam and perfectly lucid, yet the music remained the same, the emotions conveyed are still the same. An excellent example is Mozart's 20th and 21st Piano Concertos. Apparently, during the composing of his 20th, Mozart's was at one of his highest points in life, while the reverse was true during the 21st. But this does not change the content in either. So, whether Wyatt had a new lease on life upon recording Rock Bottom (as he has also said) or he was a wallowing, suicidal mess, the guy (while a musical genius) is an alcoholic and his interpretation of his state is probably best set aside as dubious. Not something I'd put much stock in.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> How do we know Wyatt even wanted to express any of his personal troubles in the music/lyrics? I can think of many works of music that reveal opposite of a composer's character and personal state of mind. Someone who is depressed may want to write something happy, and vice versa. Very commonplace in my experience.


I completely agree with this, and think Rock Bottom is perhaps the greatest example in all of music of capturing such a phenomenon, of such ambiguous properties, such fluctuating emotional states.



Phil loves classical said:


> The lyrics don't sound obviously melancholic in any way to me. I'd say anyone trying to draw it out of those is looking for a needle in a haystack, and is not applying a balanced perspective. The only one that is more ambiguous is Red Riding Hood, where symbolically he may be the wolf.


If you're only analyzing the emotion through the words, you are going to fail in your analysis, especially as you are dealing with Dada and Surrealist lyrical wordplay/puns/eccentricity. The words are merely a springboard and mean far more once sung. Additionally, the instrumental color, articulation and the emotion in which it is played, are all extremely important towards the evocation of Rock Bottom (especially as its sound world is an entirely unique phenomena in music history).

There are many parts throughout the album where he is singing a comedic or offbeat lyric with a sense of melancholy where the ambiguity is at its height. But some of the most obvious melancholic/lamenting parts in the album where the emotion of the vocals and the lyrics meet:

Sea Song:

"But I can't understand the different you

...

Please smile"

...

"We're not alone

[Non-Lyrical Vocal Outro]"

...

Little Red Robin Hit the Road

"Don't say, oh God don't tell me
Oh dear me, heavens above
Oh no, no I can't stand it

Stop please, oh deary me
What in heaven's name?
Oh blimey, mercy me, woe are we
Oh dear, oh stop it, stop it

(repeat previous lines backwards)

You've been so kind
I know, I know
So why did I hurt you?
I didn't mean to hurt you

But I'll keep trying
And I'm sure you will too"

(melancholy/lamentation crossed with panic throughout)

Alifib (in its entirety, the most melancholic, lamenting portion of the whole album)

Of the lyrics, these are the ones that have some meaning (and aren't merely strange, non-sensical baby talk):

"Alife my larder
Alife my larder

I can't forsake you

Alife my larder
Alife my larder
Confiscate
Or make you late you, you
Alife my larder
Alife my larder"

(Note: Larder means "source/supply of food")



Phil loves classical said:


> As before the music doesn't sound obviously melancholic at all. I admit the first time I heard the Sea Song, I found it to sound emotionally ambiguous, but it is common with all experimental prog rock. When I realise the underwater theme, and listening to the lyrics, i ruled out the melancholy aspect.


You may have an incorrect definition of "melancholy" and how this is portrayed in music. While I agree there is ambiguity too (as you and I have both noted), there is no question as to the melancholy tones and resigned, measured minor keys in the keyboards, in the patted, resigned drums, in Wyatt's wistful/melancholic vocals (if not always the "lyrics" but that's part of the ambiguity) but most unquestionably in the submerged choir and wordless finale.



Phil loves classical said:


> The title as Wyatt points out means nothing, but is related to the ocean bottom if anything. You can say there is some attachment the title has to the rest of the work, as in your previous attempt to discredit me, or that there is some subconscious effect on his other writing. I would say it is the other way around on this listener. The title introduced preconceptions in what you and some others hear in the music and lyrics, when it is not there. It could have the subliminal effect of your interpretation of all the music and lyrics. As I said, the title first made me expect some doom and gloom.


You're really stretching! All I said is that one might even expect the album to be melancholy with such a title. I did not interpret the title for you nor did I include it in my review/analysis, except saying in a reply that it refers to the bottom of the sea (further detailed by Wyatt himself) and is a play on the word/concept of the "depressed" meaning of "Rock Bottom", which I stand by. I am not concerned about the title of the album as it is not the music at hand. The title is ambiguous just like much of the album.



Phil loves classical said:


> But I quickly came to realize it is not there, and if so only in the wistful degree. That interview with Wyatt vindicates my view. This interview cames a decade before that book by Marcus came out. i think those basic things like the Sea song and the title would have stuck more clearly in his mind.


I can see why you might think that, but Wyatt hardly discusses the album except the cover imagery, the title, and interprets some of the lyrics in Sea Song. He does not discuss the emotion of the work, outside of discussing some of the conceptual evocation of Sea Song, (which, in turn comprises an element of emotion), but he is not discussing much else. He has said before that he doesn't know or remember much about how the album came about once they started recording, and that it all happened in a state of euphoria.

We agree that it's "wistful" (which is virtually the same thing as saying "melancholy, resigned and contemplative") ... Anyway ...

I recommend setting aside Rock Bottom, and just go listen to several lugubrious, melancholy songs, especially excerpts of vocals, keyboards, so that you can better determine this sound, how such emotion is relayed musically. You could even look through Wyatt's discography for the most evident examples and you should be able to work this out for yourself to a more correct estimation of what you're hearing.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> The melancholy states throughout the album are completely unmistakable and I'm not sure why you do not hear them. Go figure. Over a period of 12 years of discussing the work, you are the first person I've known that could not hear it. I do wholeheartedly agree with you regarding the seaward and euphoric aspects to the work. But I do find it quite incompetent on your part, in terms of an ability to recognize emotion through music, to continually miss the melancholy, lamenting, wistful (or however else it could be termed/described) aspects to the work, but who am I to judge? You are welcome to hear it as you will.
> 
> From a musical perspective, it actually does not matter to me that his depression and suicidal tendencies and alcoholism are being revealed by his biography. I don't find this adds any insight into Rock Bottom. The drugged out euphoria and intense melancholy states are all over the work already. An artist does not have to be "in" such states to "express" such states, so even if Wyatt had been happy as a clam and perfectly lucid, yet the music remained the same, the emotions conveyed are still the same. An excellent example is Mozart's 20th and 21st Piano Concertos. Apparently, during the composing of his 20th, Mozart's was at one of his highest points in life, while the reverse was true during the 21st. But this does not change the content in either. So, whether Wyatt had a new lease on life upon recording Rock Bottom (as he has also said) or he was a wallowing, suicidal mess, the guy (while a musical genius) is an alcoholic and his interpretation of his state is probably best set aside as dubious. Not something I'd put much stock in.


Like I said, Pinnock is also of the opinion it is a prevailing sense of pastoral, and he interviewed Wyatt before. I don't base on the number of people who share an opinion, because I've seen the majority proven wrong on more than a few occasions. It is a common mistake to associate certain tones and sounds with certain emotions. Listeners more commonly mistake a work to be gloomy when it is hopeful than the other way around, based on my experience. So your opinion is still just an opinion, no matter how well you think you know the piece.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Like I said, Pinnock is also of the opinion it is a prevailing sense of pastoral, and he interviewed Wyatt before. I don't base on the number of people who share an opinion, because I've seen the majority proven wrong on more than a few occasions. It is a common mistake to associate certain tones and sounds with certain emotions. Listeners more commonly mistake a work to be gloomy when it is hopeful than the other way around, based on my experience. So your opinion is still just an opinion, no matter how well you think you know the piece.


Even if you think I am wrong, which is perfectly within your right, this discussion has been very one-sided in terms of my expanse upon/explanation of details in regards to what I mean, and I am no longer interested in sharing my views with you on this matter, and may be hard pressed to do so in future matters as well. This is for reasons I've already explained that have only strengthened as we've continued. As I've warned before: discussion with you is not much of a "discussion" and, more often than not, results in a great imbalance of exchange of insights. If you have any doubts about this, simply go back through this thread and read through the details I've provided in so many instances (including the review/analysis), only to be (virtually) ignored (maybe a partial response if I'm lucky) or with continued arguments about an "argument" that never existed in the first place. Conversely, along this thread, I believe I've taken up every single one of yours. One thing I do appreciate is the interview you provided, as that was a contribution, and I'd never read it before. But you also seem to continuously think I am arguing other facets (emotions, concepts/themes to the album) than _*SIMPLY*_ and _*SOLELY*_ the aspects you are denying -- *NOT THE ONES YOU ARE INCLUDING*. I hope you heard that this time. Geez, man.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Even if you think I am wrong, which is perfectly within your right, this discussion has been very one-sided in terms of my expanse upon/explanation of details in regards to what I mean, and I am no longer interested in sharing my views with you on this matter, and may be hard pressed to do so in future matters as well. This is for reasons I've already explained that have only strengthened as we've continued. As I've warned before: discussion with you is not much of a "discussion" and, more often than not, results in a great imbalance of exchange of insights. If you have any doubts about this, simply go back through this thread and read through the details I've provided in so many instances (including the review/analysis), only to be (virtually) ignored (maybe a partial response if I'm lucky) or with continued arguments about an "argument" that never existed in the first place. Conversely, along this thread, I believe I've taken up every single one of yours. One thing I do appreciate is the interview you provided, as that was a contribution, and I'd never read it before. But you also seem to continuously think I am arguing other facets (emotions, concepts/themes to the album) than _*SIMPLY*_ and _*SOLELY*_ the aspects you are denying -- *NOT THE ONES YOU ARE INCLUDING*. I hope you heard that this time. Geez, man.


I also see we're not getting through to each other, cause I think I've been offering not only a different perspective, but also been addressing your ideas, though maybe not in the way you expect or want to hear, an analysis of the music and lyrics themselves, and on different approaches to interpretation! Ah well...


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I also see we're not getting through to each other, cause I think I've been offering not only a different perspective, but also been addressing your ideas, though maybe not in the way you expect or want to hear, an analysis of the music and lyrics themselves, and on different approaches to interpretation! Ah well...


It is not the fact you disagree, but the general lack of reasoning or explanation provided. The way I would expect, in response to an analysis, particularly in _arguing_ a position against it, is a similar (or at least attempted) depth of insight, which you have only vaguely provided and, at best, vaguely explained. If you can reproduce, from somewhere in this thread, anything more than this that you have said _about the content of Rock Bottom_, by all means do so. If you can reproduce your "in-depth" responses to my fairly detailed analyses, please by all means, do so.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> It is not the fact you disagree, but the general lack of reasoning or explanation provided. The way I would expect, in response to an analysis, particularly in _arguing_ a position against it, is a similar (or at least attempted) depth of insight, which you have only vaguely provided and, at best, vaguely explained. If you can reproduce, from somewhere in this thread, anything more than this that you have said _about the content of Rock Bottom_, by all means do so. If you can reproduce your "in-depth" responses to my fairly detailed analyses, please by all means, do so.


Unbelievable! Sorry but to me, my comments are clear and specific to the point, and to the content of the album. I intentionally left some things unsaid that could be perceived as blatant condescension, so if I didn't get through, I doubt I could any more in a congenial way.

It just occured to me we may be focussing on different things in the album, who knows, or as I suggested used different approaches to analyse.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Unbelievable! Sorry but to me, my comments are clear and specific to the point, and to the content of the album. I intentionally left some things unsaid that could be perceived as blatant condescension, so if I didn't get through, I doubt I could any more in a congenial way.


By "reproduce" I meant "quote" (or copy and paste). But I've already seen them, so no worries whatsoever.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2017)

Once you can read, it's impossible to experience being illiterate. Similarly, once you've listened to _Rock Bottom _a million times and established an unshakeable relationship with it and worn it like an old cardigan, it's almost impossible to hear it in a new light.

Much as I love it, I've never delved into it as deeply as you, afterhours, because I don't think it's that deep.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Once you can read, it's impossible to experience being illiterate. Similarly, once you've listened to _Rock Bottom _a million times and established an unshakeable relationship with it and worn it like an old cardigan, it's almost impossible to hear it in a new light.
> 
> Much as I love it, I've never delved into it as deeply as you, afterhours, because I don't think it's that deep.


That's too bad for you then. I actually have changed my opinions quite drastically many times on works of art that used to be much closer/more significant to me and with works of art that weren't, but then were. Rock Bottom is among the latter. So, no, I do not have an "automatic" or "unshakable" relationship with any work. It is built over observation, assimilation and then careful consideration of its significance in relation to the history of art (namely Rock, Classical, Jazz, Paintings, Film). And it can be taken back down by the same. If you read my criteria page (atop the review) you can actually get to the heart of why I might think so highly of it instead of fishing about making guesses in the dark and hoping it sticks


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Much as I love it, I've never delved into it as deeply as you, afterhours, because I don't think it's that deep.


Which comes first: the chicken or the egg?


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> you can actually get to the heart of why I might think so highly of it instead of fishing about making guesses in the dark and hoping it sticks


You must think what you will. I'm not fishing for anything, merely observing that it's difficult to listen to a work with someone else's ears when one's own ears have become so accustomed over the last 40 years to hearing something in a particular way. And, just to be clear, not just the hearing, but the myriad associations built up over time because of the contexts of the hearing.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> You must think what you will. I'm not fishing for anything, merely observing that it's difficult to listen to a work with someone else's ears when one's own ears have become so accustomed over the last 40 years to hearing something in a particular way. And, just to be clear, not just the hearing, but the myriad associations built up over time because of the contexts of the hearing.


It's all good. I wouldn't necessarily expect you to think or feel similarly about it, except maybe if, in addition to our familiarity with the album, you'd also assimilated comparable extents/histories of Rock, Jazz, and Visual Art (Film and Classical could never hurt either). To not only experience its influences/prerequisites (and the works surrounding such) from all angles in relation to the album, but to fully appreciate just how singular and extraordinary an experience Rock Bottom is, emotionally, conceptually and creatively, in comparison to the history of art.

NOTE: You may or may not already have the familiarity to art that I am referring to. I have no idea.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

*To All -- For Future Reference:*

Anyone is free to comment here as you wish, whether you agree with me wholly or partially, or disagree with me wholly or partially. However, realize that if you choose to argue against my review/analysis with comparably little review/analysis of your own in return, I am unlikely to give it much credence. I will still read it and may address it or possibly ignore it, but either way, it is unlikely to be given serious consideration. I am perfectly fine taking up and discussing in detail those arguments that express thorough insight/experience with the work. You can also expect me to enjoy and acknowledge any agreeable words posted about the review/analysis or anything regarding Rock Bottom -- no matter how short or extensive -- as this doesn't carry with it an obligation to be substantiated (as it is not mounting a challenge/debate at the review/analysis).

Ultimately, I am most interested in discussion and further insights about the content of Rock Bottom, about one's own detailed experiences and/or feelings with it, and about its place in music/art history from any educated/experienced perspective (in any or all of the arts). Most of my review/analysis is 10+ years old, and while there is nothing in it that _needs_ alteration in my view, I have been considering updating it by adding more detailed insights and perhaps improved explanations, of what is there. Hence, the main reason I posted this review/analysis in the first place, which was originally left in its current form -- detailed enough to provide insight and assist one towards his/her own assimilation of the work, but also just incomplete or general enough in various parts -- so as to invite further discussion.

Also, questions about what I mean on any of the points I've made in the review/analysis (or throughout the thread) are totally welcome, regardless of your experience with or opinion towards the work. I'm very interested in such a relay, as it (a) potentially results in assisting another in assimilating the work, and (b) potentially gets me to further consider it and further evaluate my insights, and perhaps expand upon them.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> you'd also assimilated comparable extents/histories of Rock, Jazz, and Visual Art (Film and Classical could never hurt either). [...]
> 
> NOTE: You may or may not already have the familiarity to art that I am referring to. I have no idea.


Well there's a challenge. To set out the extent of my knowledge of the arts to increase the credibility of my response to _Rock Bottom_. Well, I've never been to Italy or Greece, so I've not had direct experience of the arts of the classical world, and I've only seen a limited number of rock bands live - none of the Canterbury Group and certainly not Wyatt. I'm not a fan of jazz, so my only knowledge of that has been gleaned through peripheral acquisition over, say, 53 years (my parents liked Barber and Bilk, so that's when I started). As for cinema, I've never seen a Tarkovsky, though my brother has constantly reminded me I should (and I'm sure I'll fix that one day) but I've seen enough Welles to know that his style of storytelling was usually too flashy for my tastes (though Kane is in my top 40).

How'm I doing?


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Well there's a challenge. To set out the extent of my knowledge of the arts to increase the credibility of my response to _Rock Bottom_. Well, I've never been to Italy or Greece, so I've not had direct experience of the arts of the classical world, and I've only seen a limited number of rock bands live - none of the Canterbury Group and certainly not Wyatt. I'm not a fan of jazz, so my only knowledge of that has been gleaned through peripheral acquisition over, say, 53 years (my parents liked Barber and Bilk, so that's when I started). As for cinema, I've never seen a Tarkovsky, though my brother has constantly reminded me I should (and I'm sure I'll fix that one day) but I've seen enough Welles to know that his style of storytelling was usually too flashy for my tastes (though Kane is in my top 40).
> 
> How'm I doing?


Just a statement that (basically) knowledge and experience tends to build/open doors towards further knowledge and experience. Very demonstrable in any field, not just art, though perhaps not so demonstrable over the internet.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> though perhaps not so demonstrable over the internet.


Exactly so. Trust's a tough thing to come by these days, and internet trust even more so.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2017)

From the interview posted by phil earlier - the translation is not quite right, but the general gist is clear.



> If people look at music in terms of joy or sadness, it can disconnect them from what really takes place and what the music actually communicates. I do not think music has anything to do with these two adjectives. I do not like when I see music critics say that Beethoven was angry or that Shostakovich was sad where he was cheerful. I think my music escapes these emotional divisions. These emotions are like meteorological metaphors, it is raining, it is sunny ... The things we have in mind, our moods, it changes all the time, it is another planet where everything mixes. Obviously, one is unconsciously influenced by our states of souls, but all this is rather a matter of energy. When you're depressed it's very hard to do anything. And I, indeed, when I feel really depressed I do not write, I compose nothing at all. If I make a song and I burn it on disk then you can be sure that I must feel good and confident in what I had done once I left the studio. And I do not think we can deliberately direct his music by saying, _"I want the public to feel that way rather than that._ It's more instinctive.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> From the interview posted by phil earlier - the translation is not quite right, but the general gist is clear.


I agree that music can be full of ambiguities, especially Wyatt's, and I absolutely agree that much of his music, most especially Rock Bottom, was probably instinctive, probably even arising from his "subconscious" during recordings where he wasn't all the way there. As he's said before, Rock Bottom was recorded in a trance, in states of euphoria. I think one can hear this ambiguity, this euphoria, this trance, this loss of control and venturing into streams-of-conscious in the album, no question about it. I would also agree that, regardless of what emotional state is being _expressed_, it does _not_ necessarily mean the artist him/herself is IN such a state while it is being recorded/composed, as he/she could be "recalling" the state and recreating/acting it out for the purpose of the recording. So it is not necessarily true that an emotion expressed as "depression" on recording meant the artist was _actually_ "depressed" while making it.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2017)

Have you seen this...?


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Have you seen this...?


Nope, any good?


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Nope, any good?


Only just found it myself, so not yet finished it.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Nope, any good?


Well, entertaining enough, but it seemed to confirm that Wyatt the man - ageing, rather diffident and polite - comes across as less interesting than his music. It also confirmed for me that it is the whole package that I love - not 'the song', or 'the lyrics', or Robert's voice; but the complete song-as-sung-by-Wyatt-in-that-arrangement-with-those-instruments-in-that-moment. I skipped most of the musical numbers by The Soupsongs.

Finally, it also confirmed for me that whatever his motivation in writing the songs he did, there was less purpose, less deliberation about 'meaning' than we might attribute. He loved music and listening to his favourite musicians and playing with music - not all that he did was aimed at a single meaning (or multiple meanings either) and whatever we derive from it or read into it, may have been merely accidental.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

You're right. At least that's how he describes his own process, with maybe a little understatement. It starts with the music, jazz mainly, like Mingus and Monk
.
Nice quote from the interview: "If you’re not careful with words, a meaning might emerge. A thought will occur."

And also: "To aim for a market is a deadly thing to do".


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Perusing RYM, I ran across some entertaining reviews of Rock Bottom, some more insightful than others. I don't agree with all the insights, but nevertheless, these were some of the ones I enjoyed the most:

*algroth_89 Jul 20 2008 5.00 stars*
Just to make it clear, this is my all-time favorite album. I guess one always has a tough choice translating the intensity and emotional connection one has with his own favorite to words, and I'll try finding the right words to express my feelings for this masterpiece (a word which does not come even close to describe the divine position of this album), but keep in mind that whatever I'll say here will not suffice to describe the impact this work had on me. I'll also try to refrain from acting like a fanboy or faux-critic and describe this as "the best work of the century", "Rock's highest point" and whatnot. So, as for the album...

There is no way to describe this accurately. Millions of overlayered synths and guitars and trumpets flow back and forth, placing you in an oniiric trance that can be best described as floating undisturbed in an alien ocean. It's an intoxicating, isolating experience, unlike any other, gentle and yet very disturbing. All then enriched and intensified by Robert's broken and vulnerable vocals, singing out twisted, confused streams of conciousness, calling for help, begging for forgiveness. All of it one jumbled, fractured lamentation. Dark, sad, terrifying.

What's worse is from what artist this comes from. Clearly the result of his accident, this destroyed a previously jolly, extroverted and declamating character, and turned him into a demented manifestation of sorrow. His earlier music used to be quite characteristic in the whacky, splattered musicianship, the Barrettesque comedy and Dada playfulness. Now, not a single trace of fun can be detected. It's the passing of Dada into the lowest depths of Surrealism, a cathartic exploration to the crippled mentality of Mr. Wyatt. And he created a monster, no doubt about it.

Now, track by track, the album starts of with a fine, slightly catchy and not as disjointed piece, "Sea Song", also the album's most publicly recognized piece, which has been also covered by an infinity of artists varying from underground experimental bands alla Honduras Libregrupo to synthpop masters like Tears For Fears. What can be said about it? Captivating, for sure, but even then it's the album's weakest point. The solid and abriassive feel of the synths in the first section, while disturbing and fit for a B-horror film of the time, does not fit with the free form and dreamy feel of the rest of the album, but all this changes as we approach the second half. The low-key, seemingly unproffesional piano solo in the augmented scale really marks a cut between two different songs entirely, even if the actual melody is still essentially the same. Basically, the synths are suddenly lowered down, and a faint sea of synth lines is left below an eerie piano, which would at the time seem almost totally disjointed to the song, almost as if it was superposed to the song as a collage. And the effect is beautiful, undescribable. And as soon as it's done, Robert goes again. All fine, we're used to it, but then he breaks off into one of the many vocal solos of the album. And what can be said? One of the most heart-breaking moments of this fantastic work. Just then you realize this song's success.

We're then followed by "A Last Straw", a jazzy piece where you finally take notice of what has been said two paragraphs before. The whole piece moves like a extensive clash and swash of waves in an ocean of sound. Robert is yet again undeciphrable, yet precious. His "vocal trumpet" solo is yet again a performance that I can't get enough from. He's never been this resonant before. And then it opens up to what may be the best song in this album, "Little Red Riding Hood Hit The Road". A sickenningly disturbing manifestation of layered trumpets, manipulated tapes, pianos over a constant, pounding bass & marimba rhythm section. Hypnotizing. And Rob does it again, crying to the top of his lungs lines like "I didn't mean to hurt you" - this would often fall as a cliché, every sappy Pop artist, from Rod Stewart to The Backstreet Boys has sung it at least once, yet none sounded as sincere or desperate as Wyatt, here. Belting his heart out, crying in the floor, squealing and waving like a possessed child, that's how you imagine this character. Horrible.

The more abstract songs arrive, then, which are not often pleasing for the casual fan or listener. I can only love them, truth be told. "Alifib" and "Alife" are two very free-form tracks, often rather plain at first glance, but with a distinct care for interwining melodies and subtle atmosphere. The gutar solo in it, whether it's played by Fred Frith or Mike Oldfield, I really don't know, is possibly among the most beautiful ever played. This first piece comes off as gentle and terribly nostalgic. Then all Hell breaks loose on the next piece, which has Robert reciting the same random words used on "Alifib", over a terribly disturbing, alienating mess of synths and percussion. Great saxophone solo, too. The ending, how this invited female reciter rejects Rob, it's quiet and effective. We're then blown away with an epic finale, "Little Red Robin Hood Hit The Road", with squealing guitars and synths, Wyatt's intricate images: "In the garden of England dead moles lie inside their holes. / The dead-end tunnels crumble in the rain, underfoot. / Innit a shame?" Leaves me speechless every time.

So, then, when people complain about Wyatt's following albums not matching up to these celestial standards, well, you can't blame him. This is a unique, unpredictable experience, an oniiric trip through a shattered mind. It's an unsurpassable record, indeed.

As an aside point, I once spent two hours staring at Goya's Saturn Devouring His Children with this album on. Devastating experience, any fan of Wyatt should try this otherworldly combo.

...

Overall rating: 10
____________________

*jeeeesus Jul 26 2005 ▼ 5.00 stars*
There is usually something awkward and disingenuous about an artist declaring themselves mad, bringing to mind those among us who are convinced that the continuous inane chatter with which they fill their waking hours makes them 'wacky.' You know the ones; usually overweight, and determined to treat everything as a big laugh for fear of the crushing misery of trying and failing in public again.

However, when Robert Wyatt sings "your lunacy fits neatly with my own", in his perversely beguiling, strangulated Cockney, he is utterly convincing. His warped lyrics on "Alife," while superficially similar to Stanley Unwin's flights of fancy on Ogdens' Nut Gone Flake, are a million miles away in terms of intent and effect, and laden with a kind of nonchalant brain-damage that appears vaguely menacing to the first-time listener. The funereal beat of "Sea Song" and the layered drones throughout "Little Red Riding Hood hit the road" bristle with the same sinister, unsettling power.

The sleeve notes in the reissue document the 4-storey fall that left Wyatt permanently paralysed, and how it affected the album he had written but not yet recorded. This helps disclose what lies beneath, refracted by the slow-burning insanity of the music - an incredibly honest and acute portrait of his relationship with Alfreda Benge. Love songs are particularly susceptible to the deadening, homogenizing effect of convention and cliché, and seldom threaten to reveal the mystery of that space between lovers, but these get in so deep that it feels like trespassing; like the way your best friend's house used to smell different - alien - when you were young.

Joking apart, when you're drunk you're terrific.
When you're drunk I like you mostly late at night.
You're quite all right.

But I can't understand the different you in the morning, 
when it's time to play at being human for a while. 
Please smile.
____________________

*RoiOzine Dec 11 2011 5.00 stars*
A truly stunning piece of art, Robert Wyatt's Rock Bottom was many things: a multi-layered dream, a total reconstruction of human expression, a despairing pursuit of Jung's anima. Unpredictable melodies and jarring combinations of effects collided with ethereal atmospheres and lyrics alternating schizophrenically between childlike wonder and traumatized love sickness. Free jazz and nursery rhyme became terms of the same equation. Instrumental prowess and personal tragedy bred a vision of unprecedented intimacy. Wyatt's sensitive falsetto knew no difference between confusion, anger, affection, sadness; a minor Canterbury symphony arose from the abyss to solemnly salute the tightrope walk into his own Divine Comedy. The result was beyond words.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Some fascinating live performances of Rock Bottom shortly after its release. Shows the songs in extended versions, in a more extroverted, explosive and less internalized style. If anyone is having a hard time experiencing the emotional outpouring of the album itself, these live versions proclaim the emotions of the work more blatantly, more spectacularly (if less profoundly) and might assist one in getting a more immediate grip on Wyatt's convictions and unusual expressive nature as there is more spectacle (less ambiguity) to latch onto. Maybe not though, as they might be too different to truly help. 
Regardless, it's another interesting view of the work and well worth checking out.

*Sea Song:*






*A Last Straw & Little Red Riding Hood Hit the Road:*






*Alifib*


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2017)

When an artist commits a piece to permanence and sells it to me, he enters into a private pact with me. The work then exists, frozen in aspic, as an artefact created partly by him, partly by me and partly by the context in which the meeting/exchange takes place. The work becomes what I take it to mean, not necessarily what he might have meant, nor what he might do with it in other contexts such as a live performance with other people there making it a whole different experience and, therefore, a different piece of work.

I don't like live performances as they disrupt the pact.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> When an artist commits a piece to permanence and sells it to me, he enters into a private pact with me. The work then exists, frozen in aspic, as an artefact created partly by him, partly by me and partly by the context in which the meeting/exchange takes place. The work becomes what I take it to mean, not necessarily what he might have meant, nor what he might do with it in other contexts such as a live performance with other people there making it a whole different experience and, therefore, a different piece of work.
> 
> I don't like live performances as they disrupt the pact.


I agree in a sense. It's very rare, if ever, that I like a live performance more than a great album. These are no exception, but they're quite interesting nonetheless. Exhibiting an increase in the chaos and spectacle, but something of a decrease in the "inward-ness" and "unified consciousness" the arrangements have in the album, and also a decrease in the sense of resignation, faith and melancholy.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

More interesting reads from RYM reviews for Rock Bottom:

*kloewer Sep 17 2007 5.00 stars*
It seems as though personal tragedy is (in some circumstance) an impetus for genius and I'm not sure there could be much more in the way of personal tragedy than stripping a drummer of his legs. Every tune on this is sublime morose bliss. In some way the title Rock Bottom is misleading. Surely here we find Wyatt completely crushed however, the tunes herein have a free falling euphoria about them. Take the beginning of the albums second "Little Red Robin Hood Hit the Road" (two songs have this title here) with Mike Oldfield's sprawling riffs segued to Fred Frith's calming viola only to be split up by Wyatt's broken English. I love how he mocks a poor grasp of the language, it just amplifies his entire purpose. Here his voice is frustrated, defeated and pleading. The overall effect is not unlike free jazz but spread out, broken down and emotionally exhausted. And notice too the distinct lack of a bass drum and your typical rock beats (for obvious reasons), that too sort of pulls the floor out from under you. The whole record gives me the feeling of continually falling over headlong into oblivion and to say there is no joy in sadness would be to misunderstand the entire emotion itself. Wyatt gets it.

____________________

*Amoux Feb 24 2013 ▼ 4.50 stars
#196 All Time Album (acclaimedmusic.net)*
Rock Bottom is among my favourite Progressive Rock albums ever. The album constitutes of a dream Robert Wyatt had while hospitalised after (drunkenly) falling from a 3rd story building in 1973; leaving him paralysed from the waist downwards and ultimately forgoing his life as a drummer. It's the turn of events which ultimately led to him pursuing other musical endeavours and marrying the love of his life. What makes Rock Bottom so fascinating to me is that all these feelings are perfectly captured in the music. With the Jazz influences, the music itself is so dense it is (as the cover art depicts) a feeling as though you're plunging into the depths of the sea. I still can't get my head around how strange this album is. How can music be so beautiful, so melancholic, so dreamy, so creepy, so ethereal and so terrifying all at the same time?

Album Rating: 87/100
___________________

*Warthur May 20 2012 5.00 stars*
Recorded in the wake of Wyatt's life-changing accident which left him without the use of his legs and therefore unable to drum as he previously used to, Rock Bottom is the most beautiful and haunting album Wyatt ever made, and one of the best to come out of the Canterbury scene. Haunting submarine soundscapes construct an album packed with love (especially when the subject of Alfreda Benge, Wyatt's partner who he married on the day of the album's release comes up), anger, frustration and hope. Love songs are ten a penny in rock music, but it takes a rare sort of confidence to invite the object of said song on to cap off the performance by fondly rebuking your hyperbole; this is precisely what Wyatt does. The closing performance by Ivor Cutler is the eccentric capstone on a very strange structure indeed, and one which has yet to cease yielding its secrets and treasures.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> When an artist commits a piece to permanence and sells it to me, he enters into a private pact with me. The work then exists, frozen in aspic, as an artefact created partly by him, partly by me and partly by the context in which the meeting/exchange takes place. The work becomes what I take it to mean, not necessarily what he might have meant, nor what he might do with it in other contexts such as a live performance with other people there making it a whole different experience and, therefore, a different piece of work.
> 
> I don't like live performances as they disrupt the pact.


I agree also. Many live performances are somehow distorting the experience and many bands just don't come near live. On the other hand there are several live performances I value greatly, at least as much as the original studio release, e.g. the songs on Shadows and Lights by Joni Mitchell and many by Zappa.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2017)

Casebearer said:


> I agree also. Many live performances are somehow distorting the experience and many bands just don't come near live. On the other hand there are several live performances I value greatly, at least as much as the original studio release, e.g. the songs on Shadows and Lights by Joni Mitchell and many by Zappa.


I've seen a number of bands live, and usually enjoyed them as live experiences - eg 10cc, Zappa, UK, Ian Dury and the Blockheads, Split Enz, Genesis, Radiohead, Muse. I can think of a couple where the distance between me and the stage made it difficult to feel wholly immersed in the music. In the case of Knebworth 1978, I became immersed in the festival experience instead!

Wyatt's album is a special case. There are few I have found that have offered something else besides the music, and I doubt that a live event would have satisfied me at all.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

The Sea Song intro that sets the mood for the album is a line of Jazz melody played on a some sustained synthesized keyboard notes, instead of on conventional piano. Once that jazz convention is recognized, the expression itself becomes one of being at ease, and reflective, but in a different environment with the different sounding instruments which are sustained, as if submerged in water. Just stating the basic musical elements. The interpretation can become what the listener wants to add to it or derive out of it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I like this song, too:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

This song is killer, too. It's from a Michael Mantler album _The Hapless Child. _The songs are all based on stories (creepy fairly tales) by Edward Gorey.

This song is unusual for its 11/8 time signature (or 6/8 + 5/8), and the fact that the story is about an unnamed object which is falling and descending ever lower, while each verse modulates higher. Wyatt's voice is beautiful in this higher range.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> This song is killer, too. It's from a Michael Mantler album _The Hapless Child. _The songs are all based on stories (creepy fairly tales) by Edward Gorey.
> 
> This song is unusual for its 11/8 time signature (or 6/8 + 5/8), and the fact that the story is about an unnamed object which is falling and descending ever lower, while each verse modulates higher. Wyatt's voice is beautiful in this higher range.


Hapless child is amazing, I don't know why it's so overlooked. Like Rock Bottom is one of my very favorite albums.
And it's also very original, I've never been sure how to consider it. "Gothic progressive jazzrock"?


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

An interesting review from _No Ripcord_:

*Rating: 10/10*

The songs that make up the nucleus of Rock Bottom had already been written before Robert Wyatt hit a rock bottom of his own, falling out of a fourth floor window on an early summer evening in 1973. The fall broke his spine, leaving him paralyzed and subjected to eight months of hospitalization. During this period, the songs he'd written became something new, a response to his newfound circumstances and the realization, in Wyatt's words, "The loss of my legs might give me a new kind of freedom." Rock Bottom was produced by Pink Floyd's Nick Mason and released, to great acclaim, in 1974.

Thirty-four years later, and Rock Bottom is newly reissued by Domino Recordings without any frills, extra tracks or extensive liner notes. There is a modest history of the record, penned by Wyatt's hand in 1998 (likely for the last reissue treatment the record received by Rykodisc), and a lyric sheet. Otherwise, the music is the draw and that's more than enough.

Reexamining the boundless shapes and sizes presented within the six tracks that make up Rock Bottom, it's amazing that a life experience so substantial and seemingly hopeless as Wyatt's could almost work in his favor. It's as if to say, with a straight face, that a pair of working legs could possibly stifle one's creativity. Or, taken less literally, that being forced outside of a comfort zone can lead to an album this mesmerizing, beautiful and, at times, unsettling. The first few piano notes of Sea Song almost sound like the introduction to some light-hearted Randy Newman sing-along, a feeling that quickly shifts once Wyatt begins singing his soft, melancholic poetry: "Your lunacy fits neatly with my own/My very own/We're not alone."

Not that the album shies away from the familiarity of progressive or fusion jazz from the era, but Wyatt's deep persona and expressive intimacy seem to spread to his players, allowing them all to open up as intimately with their instruments in the most fluid way. Time signatures, syncopation…the mathematics matter very little and the elements, when combined, are gorgeously thick and faraway. The minimal instrumentation on Last Straw for instance sounds damn near orchestral, light cymbal percussion and earthly piano glued together by Wyatt's melodies, followed by the blaring and overlapping trumpets that open Little Red Riding Hood Hit the Road. Songs flow so brilliantly it's hard to imagine that they weren't played in one session.

The medley, Alifib/Alife, begins like a soft, synth infused Return To Forever or Weather Report track, a Jaco-contender of a bass solo (Hugh Hopper) tap-dancing on the slow foundation. The mood slowly grows somber as Wyatt sings, transitioning to the second act where the song melts into a sinister and maddening free jazz piece, Gary Windo sporadically pushing wind through his sax over the buzzing of a perpetual keyboard. Wyatt revisits his lyrics, this time reading them aloud with creepy coffeehouse inflections, hand drums bringing the spoken word environment to mind. His wife, Alfreda Benga, closes the song with an additional poem delivered with same abrupt and jagged enunciation.

Ending with Little Red Robin Hits the Road, progressive guitarist Mike Oldfield makes his six-string sing over marching snares and walls of angelic synth, leading into a rolled percussive storm of a climax before the song fades into Fred Frith's viola and Ivor Cutler's absurd recitation of an amusing poem about a phone. The album ends with its first and only laugh.

With Rock Bottom, Wyatt transcends the typical definitions of "introspection" and "life-affirmation" by being indirect and allowing his mood and music to speak for him. Eschewing the insipid and trite stories of life's challenges, Wyatt's physical disability cultivated a grand form of expression and Nick Mason evidently knew how to pull it all together. A deserving classic being kept in circulation. Thank you, Domino.

*20 November, 2008 - 04:43 - Sean Caldwell*


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Another interesting review...

*From HeadHeritage.co.uk*

*Reviewed by mare-C, 20/07/2000ce*

Rare and wonderful occasions they are when the hidden hands guide you into contact with music that you never knew you couldn't live without; when you know you've never heard a note of this stuff before but there's a tiny yet proud flame of recognition just sparked off in your innermost; when the way you look at life changes ever so slightly but irrevocably. And of course I cannae guarantee it, but I'll wager there's just a chance that your first experience of Rock bottom might prove to be one such occasion.

The dark backdrop to the creation of Rock Bottom's probably far better known than the record itself: Robert Wyatt finds himself lying in a recovery ward after a drunken fall from a bathroom window at some party or other, faced with a couple of four-pipers that Holmes himself would struggle with, namely; how do i get through this? and pertinently, what does a newly-paraplegic drummer do now?

Not that I'm trying to be at all flippant about such a personal catastrophe, but Wyatt's own recollections of the period are, with his charcteristic tendency to underplay the hand, far from anguished. At this remove, he's more of the opinion that the tragedy opened doors for him, freed him in many ways from certain hidebound views and behaviours. His notes to the 98 Ryko reissue of Rock Bottom make it clear that the key to his convalescence was a deliberate drift into reverie - allowing the dreamlife to sculpt the music and lead towards new ways of things. Via the ether, sea-change.

There's real hurt and anguish in Rock Bottom, the hurt of frayed relationships, the ache of dependency. In a fascinating detail in his notes, Wyatt recalls the initial writing period (pre-fall) in Venice, whilst accompanying his partner Alfie as she worked on Nic Roeg's Don't Look Now, Roeg repeatedly recanting the film's message -"We are not prepared". And that's in Rock Bottom too; the terror of your known world simply washing away.

But ultimately, the album glows of rebirth, illustrates the sometime-necessity of surrender if we're to truly overcome - the sea of possibilities behind this first-level world we troll. It's about the pull of the tides, the waters we come from (the geographical and the female), the changeling nature of things under the influence of the full moon (in a recent mag interview, John Balance called Rock Bottom "the most lunar album ever made" and he may well be right).

It's also about the relinquishing of the strictly masculine, the schematic, and instead embracing the feminine and the other; Alifie/Alifib (the album's astonishing centrepiece, a babel of babytalk) is one of the bravest, most open-hearted lovesongs you'll ever encounter, honest *****.

Perhaps most of all, the album's an open channel, a balm - healing music. Not some new age bubblebath, but a tough succour; no easy answers or convenient resolutions, but still a clear message from somewhere that, yeah, you're not crazy, there is more to it all than just this.

In a parallel world, everybody flooded down the shops and bought this instead of Tubular Bells. Not that I've any axes to grind as regards Mike Oldfield - I couldn't name anything he's done in a pepsi challenge, and he crops up with some marvellously spidery and enervated guitar on Rock Bottom's finale Little Red Robin Hood Hit the Road - but rather I've distinct reservations about Saint Richard Branson, and I'd have been far happier if the heft of his coffers had arisen because he helped this magical invocation of an album into millions of homes. But how sad can you be when Rock Bottom's still out there waiting for you to discover and cherish? One full moon, treat yourself to a copy and take a little refreshing nightswim back in your mind. Come home for a bit. Drift and revive.


----------

