Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Musically they are nowhere near Joni, but they have written some smart lyrics.

One of my favourite lyricists is the Steely Dan duo. I especially love this lyric:

Such as:

They are hounded down to the bottom
Of a bad town amid the ruins
Where they learn to fear an angry race
Of fallen kings, their dark companions
While the memory of their southern sky
Was clouded by the savage winter
Every patron saint hung on the wall
Shared the room with twenty sinners
See the glory (see the glory of)
Of the royal scam.

[Pattern-chaser]

One of my favourite lyricists is the Steely Dan duo.

Perhaps I should concentrate on their vocals more. I've always sort of liked SD, but their output is (IMO) over-produced and over-controlled. Aside from Becker and Fagin, the other musicians are session-musician automata, playing exactly what the Divine Pair tell them to. The result, for me, is a sound that is syrupy, all one thing, with no differentiation between instruments, voices, etc. That's a totally personal reaction, of course, but that's what music's about.

[Sy Borg]

One of my favourite lyricists is the Steely Dan duo.

Perhaps I should concentrate on their vocals more. I've always sort of liked SD, but their output is (IMO) over-produced and over-controlled. Aside from Becker and Fagin, the other musicians are session-musician automata, playing exactly what the Divine Pair tell them to. The result, for me, is a sound that is syrupy, all one thing, with no differentiation between instruments, voices, etc. That's a totally personal reaction, of course, but that's what music's about. 🙂

Those session players are far more than automota. Often they were given broad outlines and expected to apply their creativity.

https://www.facebook.com/jake.feinbergs ... 5406038629

This sure doesn't sound to me like soulless session dudes churning it out for a quick dollar, it just sounds inspired and amazing:

[Pattern-chaser]

It still sounds syrupy to me, where the music is just one sound; one very complex and changing note, if you see what I mean? Maybe there are recent remasters (as there are for so many other pieces of music) that will sound better to me? They're worth checking out: I'll have a look. [The 1995 (97?) remix of Deep Purple's Machine Head is a vast improvement on the original.]

[LuckyR]

The Dan is unusual and thus vulnerable to certain "criticisms". True they were not a big live band ie they were the opposite of spontaneous. They basically fired the "band" and used session musicians. Though it is a mistake to take the word session as some sort of description of mediocrity. In fact session musicians are commonly better players than band members since they are required to play more volume and types of music. The Dan specifically were known for auditioning numerous, numerous musicians before choosing which tracks to include in the final release. Of course each musician provided their own solos, fills and riffs within the confines of the melodies themselves, that is Becker and Fagan did not write out the specifics to be played.

This style of production is vulnerable to the label of overproduction. Though my ear doesn't make that call even though I have knowledge of what happened behind the scenes.

The lyrics are complex, few would argue the point. The vocals are narrow in range as most agree Fagan is far from a virtuoso vocalist ie he does not possess a fantastic voice. This is not unheard of in bands (as opposed to stand alone vocalists).

[Papus79]

[Sy Borg]

It still sounds syrupy to me, where the music is just one sound; one very complex and changing note, if you see what I mean? Maybe there are recent remasters (as there are for so many other pieces of music) that will sound better to me? They're worth checking out: I'll have a look. [The 1995 (97?) remix of Deep Purple's Machine Head is a vast improvement on the original.]

Given that Steely Dan is amongst my favourite bands/musicians I suspect our tastes are a teensy bit different, and it should be said that there are in the area of forty chords in that particular track :) https://tabs.ultimate-guitar.com/tab/st ... ds-1470969. Over forty!! I'm impressed when my jam pal writes a song with more than six chords.

It is interesting to hear remasters. Sometimes it's a transformation and sometimes it's hard to notice any difference. I heard a recent remix of Gong's Shamal that I thought was very good. The drums were too loud in the original, which adds excitement but reduces a song's sense of melodicism. But the track is already plenty exciting enough, so boosting the bass and melody instruments was an improvement to my ear.

[Pattern-chaser]

Given that Steely Dan is amongst my favourite bands/musicians I suspect our tastes are a teensy bit different...

Not that different. I do like SD, it's the homogenous presentation of the overall sound that I'm not so keen on.

It is interesting to hear remasters. Sometimes it's a transformation and sometimes it's hard to notice any difference. I heard a recent remix of Gong's Shamal that I thought was very good. The drums were too loud in the original, which adds excitement but reduces a song's sense of melodicism. But the track is already plenty exciting enough, so boosting the bass and melody instruments was an improvement to my ear.

Shamal is later Gong. I tend to go more for their earlier stuff. But the later Gong incarnations were pretty good too. After Daevid and Gillie left, the band fragmented somewhat, with Pierre Moerlin's Gong, and so forth. Damned good band, though. My favourite albums will always be the Radio Gnome trilogy, I think.

<later>

I found a 20-track SD compilation called "audiophile collection". The sound is much better than I remember; I can hear the different strands of the music, like listening to an ensemble. Much better.

[Sy Borg]

Given that Steely Dan is amongst my favourite bands/musicians I suspect our tastes are a teensy bit different...

Not that different. I do like SD, it's the homogenous presentation of the overall sound that I'm not so keen on. 😉

It is interesting to hear remasters. Sometimes it's a transformation and sometimes it's hard to notice any difference. I heard a recent remix of Gong's Shamal that I thought was very good. The drums were too loud in the original, which adds excitement but reduces a song's sense of melodicism. But the track is already plenty exciting enough, so boosting the bass and melody instruments was an improvement to my ear.

Shamal is later Gong. I tend to go more for their earlier stuff. But the later Gong incarnations were pretty good too. After Daevid and Gillie left, the band fragmented somewhat, with Pierre Moerlin's Gong, and so forth. Damned good band, though. My favourite albums will always be the Radio Gnome trilogy, I think.

<later>

I found a 20-track SD compilation called "audiophile collection". The sound is much better than I remember; I can hear the different strands of the music, like listening to an ensemble. Much better.

I also like all iterations of Gong but I preferred Gong from Shamal and Gazeuse to the trilogy, which have some great music but are a bit patchy because Daevid and Gilly were lunatics :)

Funny how these things go. A related band, Soft Machine, also lost a major founder, Robert Wyatt (to paraplegia), and fans vary was to whether they prefer the early Soft Machine or the "Harvest period" (I prefer the latter). Pink Floyd, of course, lost their founder Syd Barrett (to mental illness), and I yet again preferred the band after their main founder left.

[Pattern-chaser]

Shamal is later Gong. I tend to go more for their earlier stuff. But the later Gong incarnations were pretty good too. After Daevid and Gillie left, the band fragmented somewhat, with Pierre Moerlin's Gong, and so forth. Damned good band, though. My favourite albums will always be the Radio Gnome trilogy, I think.

I also like all iterations of Gong but I preferred Gong from Shamal and Gazeuse to the trilogy, which have some great music but are a bit patchy because Daevid and Gilly were lunatics

Funny how these things go. A related band, Soft Machine, also lost a major founder, Robert Wyatt (to paraplegia), and fans vary was to whether they prefer the early Soft Machine or the "Harvest period" (I prefer the latter). Pink Floyd, of course, lost their founder Syd Barrett (to mental illness), and I yet again preferred the band after their main founder left.

Ah, Gong and Soft Machine. Now we have truly entered the land of my youth! In the early 70s, when mainstream rock was centred on 'singing cowboys' - American West-Coast bands, and other country-sounding outfits - me and my mates were listening to British progressive-rock and jazz-rock bands. This very much included the so-called Canterbury bands. And Daevid was a founder member of the Softs, along with Kevin Ayers and Mike Ratledge.

Yes, Daevid was an Ozzie loonie. Early on, he decided to offer his message in a humourous and zany manner, instead of the more serious political and ecological approaches that were growing elsewhere (and were later betrayed by the flower-children and hippies as they grew up, the first generation who actually understood what we were doing to the ecosystem ). I bought Camembert Electrique when it came out, and Radio Gnome Invisible too. Angel's Egg followed soon, and I was hooked. So I preferred, and still prefer, the earlier albums, just as I prefer the earlier efforts by the Floyd (with Syd) and Tangerine Dream (although Phaedra, a later album, is there too as it's what they played when I saw them).

As for the 'casualties', Robert Wyatt was 'taught' to drink by Keith Moon, a legendary drinker, and fell out of a window at a party, breaking his back, and forcing him into a singing and composing solo career. His first solo album, Rock Bottom, is still a masterpiece in my eyes (ears?). Syd was an acid casualty, who never really recovered from taking enormous amounts of acid over an extended period. Syd should probably be remembered alongside Janis, Jimi and Brian, although he didn't actually die.

Ah, happy days! Genesis (early albums, again), Van der Graaf Generator, Soft Machine, Hatfield and the North, Egg, Gong, Henry Cow, Kevin Ayers.... And then there was Frank Zappa, who alone is probably impossible to categorise, as few musicians/bands resemble his art even a little. We're only in it for the money is still a firm favourite!

<drifts away into nostalgia>

[Sy Borg]

Shamal is later Gong. I tend to go more for their earlier stuff. But the later Gong incarnations were pretty good too. After Daevid and Gillie left, the band fragmented somewhat, with Pierre Moerlin's Gong, and so forth. Damned good band, though. My favourite albums will always be the Radio Gnome trilogy, I think.

I also like all iterations of Gong but I preferred Gong from Shamal and Gazeuse to the trilogy, which have some great music but are a bit patchy because Daevid and Gilly were lunatics :)

Funny how these things go. A related band, Soft Machine, also lost a major founder, Robert Wyatt (to paraplegia), and fans vary was to whether they prefer the early Soft Machine or the "Harvest period" (I prefer the latter). Pink Floyd, of course, lost their founder Syd Barrett (to mental illness), and I yet again preferred the band after their main founder left.

Ah, Gong and Soft Machine. Now we have truly entered the land of my youth! In the early 70s, when mainstream rock was centred on 'singing cowboys' - American West-Coast bands, and other country-sounding outfits - me and my mates were listening to British progressive-rock and jazz-rock bands. This very much included the so-called Canterbury bands. And Daevid was a founder member of the Softs, along with Kevin Ayers and Mike Ratledge.

Yes, Daevid was an Ozzie loonie. Early on, he decided to offer his message in a humourous and zany manner, instead of the more serious political and ecological approaches that were growing elsewhere (and were later betrayed by the flower-children and hippies as they grew up, the first generation who actually understood what we were doing to the ecosystem 😰). I bought Camembert Electrique when it came out, and Radio Gnome Invisible too. Angel's Egg followed soon, and I was hooked. So I preferred, and still prefer, the earlier albums, just as I prefer the earlier efforts by the Floyd (with Syd) and Tangerine Dream (although Phaedra, a later album, is there too as it's what they played when I saw them).

As for the 'casualties', Robert Wyatt was 'taught' to drink by Keith Moon, a legendary drinker, and fell out of a window at a party, breaking his back, and forcing him into a singing and composing solo career. His first solo album, Rock Bottom, is still a masterpiece in my eyes (ears?). Syd was an acid casualty, who never really recovered from taking enormous amounts of acid over an extended period. Syd should probably be remembered alongside Janis, Jimi and Brian, although he didn't actually die.

Ah, happy days! Genesis (early albums, again), Van der Graaf Generator, Soft Machine, Hatfield and the North, Egg, Gong, Henry Cow, Kevin Ayers.... And then there was Frank Zappa, who alone is probably impossible to categorise, as few musicians/bands resemble his art even a little. We're only in it for the money is still a firm favourite!

<drifts away into nostalgia>

You like all old the original versions of Gong, Floyd, Softs and Zappa while I like the more developed and accessible versions afterwards. Early in their careers, these artists thought nothing of sacrificing aesthetics to help put their concepts across (ditto Captain Beefheart) early in their career.

For me, there's a mid-period for each of these that was their peak - Gong's Shamal and Gazeuse, Floyd's DSOTM and WYWH, Soft Machine's Bundles and Softs, and Zappa's One Size Fits All and Apostrophe - all albums that purists consider "commercial". Maybe they were paying bills, but there is still great passion and imagination in these albums.

[Papus79]

[Pattern-chaser]

You like all old the original versions of Gong, Floyd, Softs and Zappa while I like the more developed and accessible versions afterwards.

You say "developed", I say commercialised. Not that I blame any of them, but from an artistic purist's perspective, they sold out. They moved away from the imaginative creativity that fuelled their beginnings. And, in doing so, they achieved far more mainstream success, and hugely greater income. I don't think anyone could blame them for that. But Floyd never again approached the enchanting madness of the Crazy Diamond's lyrics, just as Gong became more, er, monochrome - but not less skilled - after Daevid.

[Sy Borg]

You like all old the original versions of Gong, Floyd, Softs and Zappa while I like the more developed and accessible versions afterwards.

You say "developed", I say commercialised. Not that I blame any of them, but from an artistic purist's perspective, they sold out. They moved away from the imaginative creativity that fuelled their beginnings. And, in doing so, they achieved far more mainstream success, and hugely greater income. I don't think anyone could blame them for that. But Floyd never again approached the enchanting madness of the Crazy Diamond's lyrics, just as Gong became more, er, monochrome - but not less skilled - after Daevid.

I have never cared for purity - not in race, music or any other culture, dogs, cats or character. Actually, I have never understood why people embrace purity. It strikes me as limiting.

I don't see these bands as selling out, rather, they matured. There is often something special and anarchic about a debut album - a lifetime's of ideas released in a flood (hence the "second album syndrome" as artists try to match their longstanding creative ideas with new ideas made up under pressure in just one year).

Floyd actually blossomed after Syd left. He provided the initial creative spark, but it soon ran out.

Softs and Zappa tended towards the unlistenable early in their careers and then later, reduced the experiments and focused on making outstanding music. Each bands' purist fans revelled in how their ungly music stuck a big middle finger to the industry, so they criticised the bands' changes. To remain a young rebel forever is to be stunted.

Gong are a little different, as their music was largely brilliant from the get-go, just that Daevid's mad hippie indulgences made some tracks embarrassingly silly - but when they put that stuff aside and decided to play music, they were terrific.

A band that genuinely did sell out was The Tubes. They started out as a Zappaesque prog outfit and ended up hitting the charts with 80s AOR. Then again, punk and disco had stolen their market and they were on the verge of folding, so they literally sold out to pay the rent - to survive.

As you say, selling out is often not worthy of blame. Consider John Wetton, who played bass and sang with a number of leading progressive bands for decades. After all that time, he was still so much less wealthy than hundreds of less talented pop stars.

He formed Asia and started playing commercial AOR like The Tubes and made a small fortune. Impossible to begrudge him, with such a long body of work that was full of artistic integrity behind him. He paid his dues, and then some. By contrast, guitarist Allan Holdsworth never sold out and died with modest means. In that sense, it's darkly ironic that he was playing with Soft Machine at a time when purists claimed they had sold out. He was apparently not quite pure enough

[Pattern-chaser]

You like all old the original versions of Gong, Floyd, Softs and Zappa while I like the more developed and accessible versions afterwards.

You say "developed", I say commercialised. Not that I blame any of them, but from an artistic purist's perspective, they sold out. They moved away from the imaginative creativity that fuelled their beginnings. And, in doing so, they achieved far more mainstream success, and hugely greater income. I don't think anyone could blame them for that. But Floyd never again approached the enchanting madness of the Crazy Diamond's lyrics, just as Gong became more, er, monochrome - but not less skilled - after Daevid.

I don't see these bands as selling out, rather, they matured. There is often something special and anarchic about a debut album - a lifetime's of ideas released in a flood (hence the "second album syndrome" as artists try to match their longstanding creative ideas with new ideas made up under pressure in just one year).

Floyd actually blossomed after Syd left. He provided the initial creative spark, but it soon ran out. Softs and Zappa tended towards the unlistenable early in their careers and then later, reduced the experiments and focused on making outstanding music.

The thing is, it was these experiments that lead to the uniqueness of the bands' music. Some experiments were less successful than others, of course. This is ever the way for pioneers. The artistic gift that these bands gave to music was something new; something unique. The production and presentation may not have the sophistication of later offerings, as the bands had yet to learn practical skills like production, or to work with those who already had those skills. But the artistic magic was there.

Bands like the Floyd and Hawkwind pioneered the use of electronic doodads in music, (soon) before the advent of synthesisers. Without their experiments to lead the way, this stuff would not have become available to music and musicians as a whole. Early Tangerine Dream albums also contributed here.

All that you say is true, or at the least, a valid opinion, but it does rather fail to recognise the efforts of these experimental bands, and the results those experiments gave to us, and to music. We are not arguing here, but simply exchanging and comparing perspectives.

By contrast, guitarist Allan Holdsworth never sold out and died with modest means. In that sense, it's darkly ironic that he was playing with Soft Machine at a time when purists claimed they had sold out. He was apparently not quite pure enough

The Softs' began as Robert Wyatt's band. Gradually, his influence lessened, and soon Mike Ratledge became the driving force. Not long afterwards, Wyatt broke his back, and his career took a sharp turn to an admirable (IMO) solo career. The Softs never really sold out, and they never made huge pop-star money either, they just had the usual 'creative differences' between band members. The 'purists' you refer to were only lamenting the loss of what they had, as the band's direction changed, as you pointed out in text I haven't quoted.