Oh, That Awful Racket
May 28, 2007 6:51 PM Subscribe
A new series called The Seven Ages of Rock has spilling out of idiot boxes all over the UK recently. Get your overseas fix with some YT clips of episode two (Art Rock): 1 2 3
I saw this last night and my most surprised reaction was that Genesis used to be art rock, with fox masks and red dresses. Phil Collins didn't seem really into it though, which doesn't surprise me.
posted by smackfu at 6:58 PM on May 28, 2007
posted by smackfu at 6:58 PM on May 28, 2007
Oh, yeah... Peter Gabriel used to be in the band (when they were relevant).
posted by chuckdarwin at 7:00 PM on May 28, 2007
posted by chuckdarwin at 7:00 PM on May 28, 2007
Do they realize that rock began years before their first listed date (1962), in the United States? A history of rock thing that omits Elvis and Chuck Berry isn't actually about the history of rock.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 7:06 PM on May 28, 2007
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 7:06 PM on May 28, 2007
The series chooses to draw a distinction between Rock (starting with The Who, Stones, Kinks, etc. reinterpreting the blues) and Rock & Roll - Elvis et al.
It's all very technical, you see.
posted by doublesix at 7:42 PM on May 28, 2007
It's all very technical, you see.
posted by doublesix at 7:42 PM on May 28, 2007
A distinction without a difference, one might even say.
posted by blucevalo at 8:02 PM on May 28, 2007
posted by blucevalo at 8:02 PM on May 28, 2007
When I was a teenager in the seventies, we always said "Rock" to refer to music from the sixties and seventies. "Rock'n'roll" meant music from the fifties and all those Grease/Happy Days/American Graffiti stereotypes. It wasn't until the late seventies and early eighties that I started to hear the term "Rock'n'roll" to be used for contemporary music.
posted by octothorpe at 8:29 PM on May 28, 2007
posted by octothorpe at 8:29 PM on May 28, 2007
Historically, Rock n Roll started in America in the 1950s, and didn't take off in Great Britain until the 1960s, when cross-polination of creativity hopscotched back and forth across the Atlantic. While I know I should be partial to Fats Domino and Elvis Presley and Buddy Holly, the fact is the Beatles, the Stones, and the Who came over here and showed us how it's done. And QUEEN! Damn, you can't forget Queen, man. Or Pink Floyd.
By the 1970s, different descendants of rock n roll evolved in different directions. Punk, Progressive, Psychedelic, Folk rock, Metal, the synthetic works of Stevie Wonder, Herbie Hancock, Brian Eno and countless others. What is and isn't rock is so open to interpretation that the word loses meaning or significance.
There's countrified rock - Rock that sounds like country. Is The Devil Went Down To Georgia by the Charlie Daniels Band a rock song? Why the hell not? It DOES rock. Is Johnny Cash rock? No, he's country. So why the hell is Bruce Springsteen rock? What the hell is Bob Seger? Jackson Browne? These guys are ok for what they do but can they really hold a candle to James Brown? Jimi Hendrix? Elvis Presley? How can the same word to describe Elvis be used to describe Phil Collins?
If Bob Dylan is rock, why the hell is James Taylor not?
I think the terminology has been perverted so that it's meaning is entirely subjective, making it impossible to properly communicate with it. Each individual has their own classifications. There is no single accepted definition across the board for any of this.
I've heard people throw MeatLoaf into the heavy metal category. I've even seen MeatLoaf put in the metal category at record stores, right next to Metallica. WTF??? MeatLoaf runs RINGS around Metallica, but it's also like comparing apples & oranges, cuz MeatLoaf ain't metal.
For my money he's rock n roll - especially when he worked with Steinman. Damn did they rock, but so many people don't consider Bat Out of Hell rock n roll. That annoys the crap outta me.
Paradise By The Dashboard Light IS rock n roll, far as I'm concerned. That's not metal. So why do so many say MeatLoaf's metal? Name me one heavy metal song by MeatLoaf. Name me one MeatLoaf song that DOESN'T rock!
I've heard people call Jerry Lee Lewis rock n roll. That genre's audience shunned him and left him for dead. The majority of his career's successes are in the country genre. In the days of early rock, he was a shooting star. For three decades in the country genre (60s 70s & 80s), he's a favored son.
Rock n Roll has been used to describe everyone from Chuck Berry to The Ramones. Is Electric Light Orchestra rock? Is Journey? Jefferson Airplane? Garth Brooks on a good day?
Hell, what isn't rock? IS rock anything anymore? What the hell does the word even mean?
I'm thinkin we need to put that word to rest and come up with some better terminology.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:23 PM on May 28, 2007 [1 favorite]
By the 1970s, different descendants of rock n roll evolved in different directions. Punk, Progressive, Psychedelic, Folk rock, Metal, the synthetic works of Stevie Wonder, Herbie Hancock, Brian Eno and countless others. What is and isn't rock is so open to interpretation that the word loses meaning or significance.
There's countrified rock - Rock that sounds like country. Is The Devil Went Down To Georgia by the Charlie Daniels Band a rock song? Why the hell not? It DOES rock. Is Johnny Cash rock? No, he's country. So why the hell is Bruce Springsteen rock? What the hell is Bob Seger? Jackson Browne? These guys are ok for what they do but can they really hold a candle to James Brown? Jimi Hendrix? Elvis Presley? How can the same word to describe Elvis be used to describe Phil Collins?
If Bob Dylan is rock, why the hell is James Taylor not?
I think the terminology has been perverted so that it's meaning is entirely subjective, making it impossible to properly communicate with it. Each individual has their own classifications. There is no single accepted definition across the board for any of this.
I've heard people throw MeatLoaf into the heavy metal category. I've even seen MeatLoaf put in the metal category at record stores, right next to Metallica. WTF??? MeatLoaf runs RINGS around Metallica, but it's also like comparing apples & oranges, cuz MeatLoaf ain't metal.
For my money he's rock n roll - especially when he worked with Steinman. Damn did they rock, but so many people don't consider Bat Out of Hell rock n roll. That annoys the crap outta me.
Paradise By The Dashboard Light IS rock n roll, far as I'm concerned. That's not metal. So why do so many say MeatLoaf's metal? Name me one heavy metal song by MeatLoaf. Name me one MeatLoaf song that DOESN'T rock!
I've heard people call Jerry Lee Lewis rock n roll. That genre's audience shunned him and left him for dead. The majority of his career's successes are in the country genre. In the days of early rock, he was a shooting star. For three decades in the country genre (60s 70s & 80s), he's a favored son.
Rock n Roll has been used to describe everyone from Chuck Berry to The Ramones. Is Electric Light Orchestra rock? Is Journey? Jefferson Airplane? Garth Brooks on a good day?
Hell, what isn't rock? IS rock anything anymore? What the hell does the word even mean?
I'm thinkin we need to put that word to rest and come up with some better terminology.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:23 PM on May 28, 2007 [1 favorite]
The UK perfected rock music. They made it weird, that's a good thing.
posted by Liquidwolf at 9:24 PM on May 28, 2007
posted by Liquidwolf at 9:24 PM on May 28, 2007
Empath: "Rock and Roll goes back at least to the late 40s."
Back in the late 1940s it was called race music and had strong ties to the blues and gospel. However, it wasn't quite rock n roll just yet. It was still perculatin'.
Why'd they call it the blues? The use of the color blue was a derogatory way that religious types referred to unacceptable and morally questionable behavior. One can easily argue that rock & roll is the bastard child of gospel & the blues.
Roy Brown recorded "Good Rocking Tonight" in 1947, which some historians call the first rock n roll recording, but it was really jump blues. Elvis Presley did a cover of Good Rocking Tonight in 1954, and his version blurs the lines between jump blues and what we now take for granted as 'rock'. Somewhere between 47 and 54, rock n roll was born, but it wasn't in Great Britain.
Rock n roll was born in the States. Great Britain is where rock n roll went to school and grew up. The British Invasion was when rock n roll returned home, but its long since aquired dual citizenship, and rock's got one hell of a fucked up lookin' passport.
It's also interesting to note that rock n roll did not exist prior to world war two. Notably LOUD music didn't really have a place to hang its hat until after the invention of the A-Bomb.
Coincidence? Perhaps... Perhaps not.
I argue that part of what made rock n roll work was the friendly relationship between the two countries, from political, economic, sociological, and multiple other mundane levels. The US & the UK had cooperated to pull the world back from the brink of utter destrution at the hands of tyrants and fascists.
Together, US & UK stopped Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, and we had Stalin peeing in his pants. Rock n roll evolved out of that synergy. It's little wonder how rock's evolution led to its often being used to fight the concept of war. Like a rebellious youth against its previous generation.
It's not possible to properly discuss the history of 20th century western music without acknowledging both sides of the Atlantic practically in the same breath.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:56 PM on May 28, 2007
Back in the late 1940s it was called race music and had strong ties to the blues and gospel. However, it wasn't quite rock n roll just yet. It was still perculatin'.
Why'd they call it the blues? The use of the color blue was a derogatory way that religious types referred to unacceptable and morally questionable behavior. One can easily argue that rock & roll is the bastard child of gospel & the blues.
Roy Brown recorded "Good Rocking Tonight" in 1947, which some historians call the first rock n roll recording, but it was really jump blues. Elvis Presley did a cover of Good Rocking Tonight in 1954, and his version blurs the lines between jump blues and what we now take for granted as 'rock'. Somewhere between 47 and 54, rock n roll was born, but it wasn't in Great Britain.
Rock n roll was born in the States. Great Britain is where rock n roll went to school and grew up. The British Invasion was when rock n roll returned home, but its long since aquired dual citizenship, and rock's got one hell of a fucked up lookin' passport.
It's also interesting to note that rock n roll did not exist prior to world war two. Notably LOUD music didn't really have a place to hang its hat until after the invention of the A-Bomb.
Coincidence? Perhaps... Perhaps not.
I argue that part of what made rock n roll work was the friendly relationship between the two countries, from political, economic, sociological, and multiple other mundane levels. The US & the UK had cooperated to pull the world back from the brink of utter destrution at the hands of tyrants and fascists.
Together, US & UK stopped Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, and we had Stalin peeing in his pants. Rock n roll evolved out of that synergy. It's little wonder how rock's evolution led to its often being used to fight the concept of war. Like a rebellious youth against its previous generation.
It's not possible to properly discuss the history of 20th century western music without acknowledging both sides of the Atlantic practically in the same breath.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:56 PM on May 28, 2007
If Bob Dylan is rock, why the hell is James Taylor not?
'Cause of this, for starters.
posted by docgonzo at 10:06 PM on May 28, 2007
'Cause of this, for starters.
posted by docgonzo at 10:06 PM on May 28, 2007
I thought "post-rock" was the punchline to a very bad joke.
One can argue that everything since 1815 is post-classical. However, that insinuates that there's an after, after classical music.
As if classical music went away. Bartok, Stravinsky, and Copland would disagree with you. Bernard Hermann's work for Alfred Hitchcock was decidedly classical in some ways while quite modern in others. Then of course there's Subotnick. Classical music didn't go anywhere.
You hear it in movies all the time and don't even realize it. I'd argue that in some ways Danny Elfman uses strong classical influences in much of his later works. And what is John Williams, if not one of the most prolific contemporary composers alive today - again, film scores.
Post rock? The phrase can't be used until after rock's dead, which will happen some time after classical music dies, which I'd wager to say is never.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:47 PM on May 28, 2007
One can argue that everything since 1815 is post-classical. However, that insinuates that there's an after, after classical music.
As if classical music went away. Bartok, Stravinsky, and Copland would disagree with you. Bernard Hermann's work for Alfred Hitchcock was decidedly classical in some ways while quite modern in others. Then of course there's Subotnick. Classical music didn't go anywhere.
You hear it in movies all the time and don't even realize it. I'd argue that in some ways Danny Elfman uses strong classical influences in much of his later works. And what is John Williams, if not one of the most prolific contemporary composers alive today - again, film scores.
Post rock? The phrase can't be used until after rock's dead, which will happen some time after classical music dies, which I'd wager to say is never.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:47 PM on May 28, 2007
ZachsMind, that's a good analysis, but I think there are a few factors that you're not necessarily taking into account, including technology, economics, and cultural pervasiveness.
I think that Gustav Mahler, for example, would disagree that truly loud music is a post-WWII phenomenon. However, electric amplification (and later electric instruments) began to be used after WWII as a matter of course rather than as a matter of disliked necessity, allowing for high volumes without a full symphony orchestra. It isn't coincidental that large orchestras capable of reaching a giant crowd acoustically started being viewed as being more and more economically unfeasible around the same time, and were largely replaced by small ensembles.
However, music which could reasonably considered late romantic-era remained culturally pervasive, thanks in no small part to the emergence of sound recording capability when it was still the biggest game in town. As other forms of music began to dominate the charts, late romantic music remained a form that everyone heard and was familiar with, and in fact its increasing age gave it a universality and cutural pervasiveness that more modern forms lacked (being still new enough to be associated with particular groups of people.)
But symphony orchestras remained costly enough and unpopular enough that new music largely stopped being written for them - except for epic films, which could afford large symphony orchestras, and where the universality (and bombast) of the form was rightly seen as particularly appropriate.
I'm not sure I agree with you that new classical music hasn't largely ceased to be written outside of that limited market, however - most of the composers you cite are not exactly alive and kicking. That doesn't mean it's vanished entirely, of course, and its influence pops up in surprising places. But it is definitely a pale shadow of the powerhouse it once was in terms of popularity, just as the waltz (the scandalous erotic dance of its era) is now viewed as quaint and old-fashioned. People still waltz, but it ain't the same.
posted by kyrademon at 12:01 AM on May 29, 2007
I think that Gustav Mahler, for example, would disagree that truly loud music is a post-WWII phenomenon. However, electric amplification (and later electric instruments) began to be used after WWII as a matter of course rather than as a matter of disliked necessity, allowing for high volumes without a full symphony orchestra. It isn't coincidental that large orchestras capable of reaching a giant crowd acoustically started being viewed as being more and more economically unfeasible around the same time, and were largely replaced by small ensembles.
However, music which could reasonably considered late romantic-era remained culturally pervasive, thanks in no small part to the emergence of sound recording capability when it was still the biggest game in town. As other forms of music began to dominate the charts, late romantic music remained a form that everyone heard and was familiar with, and in fact its increasing age gave it a universality and cutural pervasiveness that more modern forms lacked (being still new enough to be associated with particular groups of people.)
But symphony orchestras remained costly enough and unpopular enough that new music largely stopped being written for them - except for epic films, which could afford large symphony orchestras, and where the universality (and bombast) of the form was rightly seen as particularly appropriate.
I'm not sure I agree with you that new classical music hasn't largely ceased to be written outside of that limited market, however - most of the composers you cite are not exactly alive and kicking. That doesn't mean it's vanished entirely, of course, and its influence pops up in surprising places. But it is definitely a pale shadow of the powerhouse it once was in terms of popularity, just as the waltz (the scandalous erotic dance of its era) is now viewed as quaint and old-fashioned. People still waltz, but it ain't the same.
posted by kyrademon at 12:01 AM on May 29, 2007
Post rock? The phrase can't be used until after rock's dead, which will happen some time after classical music dies, which I'd wager to say is never.
That doesn't make sense. We have post-punk, even though punk records are still being made. We have post-hardcore, even though there are still hardcore bands around.
Hell, we even have structuralists, even though post-structuralism has been around for ages.
Post-rock is often conceptualized as a sort of dialectical evolution of rock, so the name makes sense. What post-rock artists like Godspeed! You Black Emperor play is closer to classical and electronica than to rock.
posted by nasreddin at 12:03 AM on May 29, 2007
That doesn't make sense. We have post-punk, even though punk records are still being made. We have post-hardcore, even though there are still hardcore bands around.
Hell, we even have structuralists, even though post-structuralism has been around for ages.
Post-rock is often conceptualized as a sort of dialectical evolution of rock, so the name makes sense. What post-rock artists like Godspeed! You Black Emperor play is closer to classical and electronica than to rock.
posted by nasreddin at 12:03 AM on May 29, 2007
I watched it and I liked it. Thanks chuckdarwin. I wish I had access to the show. It seems pretty cool.
posted by spacelux at 12:11 AM on May 29, 2007
posted by spacelux at 12:11 AM on May 29, 2007
I think those phrases are silly too, NasReddin. I think the word "post production" makes sense only if it's after production. In filmmaking, 'post production' is becoming a term that describes the latter steps in production, which is pretty messed up.
I also think "post modern" is illogical, and the fact the word "modern" is now dated to mean something that's no longer modern is pretty messed up. It's like saying that we can't use the word "NOW" anymore to describe the present, because "now" now has connotations of "then." It's patently absurd.
But then, at one time "rock" meant a solid object containing minerals that came out of the Earth. Maybe we should call the next style of music that comes along "scissors." Then we can call the best of "scissors" music "scissors and cutters" to go along with the "rock and roll" theme.
Language is a virus. *achoo*
posted by ZachsMind at 12:54 AM on May 29, 2007
I also think "post modern" is illogical, and the fact the word "modern" is now dated to mean something that's no longer modern is pretty messed up. It's like saying that we can't use the word "NOW" anymore to describe the present, because "now" now has connotations of "then." It's patently absurd.
But then, at one time "rock" meant a solid object containing minerals that came out of the Earth. Maybe we should call the next style of music that comes along "scissors." Then we can call the best of "scissors" music "scissors and cutters" to go along with the "rock and roll" theme.
Language is a virus. *achoo*
posted by ZachsMind at 12:54 AM on May 29, 2007
pracowity: "So... did anyone watch it?"
I saw the Pink Floyd thing. That was cool. I'd never actually seen the wall in a live rendition of The Wall like that before. I'd read about it but it was cool actually seeing it in action.
You were right kyrademon in that I wasn't taking technology into account, but I'd argue that some of the contemporary classical artists I mentioned are alive and kicking, notably Elfman, Williams, and Subotnick. Others I mentioned were prominent in the 20th century around the same time rock was in its infancy.
The whole music history scene is like a big garden. Lots of cross polination. Lots of genres and styles and approaches feeding off one another and learning from one another. Each genre's like one bed of plants. Each band or artist or composer is like a flower. It's all really pretty when you step back. A noisy garden. =) Music history is like a sound museum.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:07 AM on May 29, 2007
I saw the Pink Floyd thing. That was cool. I'd never actually seen the wall in a live rendition of The Wall like that before. I'd read about it but it was cool actually seeing it in action.
You were right kyrademon in that I wasn't taking technology into account, but I'd argue that some of the contemporary classical artists I mentioned are alive and kicking, notably Elfman, Williams, and Subotnick. Others I mentioned were prominent in the 20th century around the same time rock was in its infancy.
The whole music history scene is like a big garden. Lots of cross polination. Lots of genres and styles and approaches feeding off one another and learning from one another. Each genre's like one bed of plants. Each band or artist or composer is like a flower. It's all really pretty when you step back. A noisy garden. =) Music history is like a sound museum.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:07 AM on May 29, 2007
If you search youtube, it looks like there are segments on Bowie, Roger Daltrey, and The Damned up now.
posted by pracowity at 1:56 AM on May 29, 2007
posted by pracowity at 1:56 AM on May 29, 2007
spacelux wrote I watched it and I liked it. Thanks chuckdarwin. I wish I had access to the show. It seems pretty cool.
I'll post any other links to future episodes into this thread, if it's still open. Should have ep three up this weekend.
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:56 AM on May 29, 2007
I'll post any other links to future episodes into this thread, if it's still open. Should have ep three up this weekend.
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:56 AM on May 29, 2007
Obviously, I watched it.
I had never seen any of that wonderfully psychedelic early Floyd, insanely odd early Genesis, uber-hip early VU, jaw-dropping early Bowie or distinctly Bowiesque early Roxy Music stuff. Very, very cool footage indeed. I'm thinking of buying a burner so I can dump it down from my DVR.
Being a big Hendrix fan (in my teens), I had seen every millimetre of footage the world has to offer dozens of times, so episode one was not a revelation (other than the stories by Jimi's friends who are still alive, like Chandler and Clapton).
Episode two, like, totally blew my fuckin' mind dude (as it were).
As for the distinction between rock 'n roll and ROCK, well it's kind of stupid.
Obviously, they're not going to put Elvis in the same show as Lou Reed. They just aren't.
It would've been much better if a new term had been invented for what came after The Beatles.
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:03 AM on May 29, 2007
I had never seen any of that wonderfully psychedelic early Floyd, insanely odd early Genesis, uber-hip early VU, jaw-dropping early Bowie or distinctly Bowiesque early Roxy Music stuff. Very, very cool footage indeed. I'm thinking of buying a burner so I can dump it down from my DVR.
Being a big Hendrix fan (in my teens), I had seen every millimetre of footage the world has to offer dozens of times, so episode one was not a revelation (other than the stories by Jimi's friends who are still alive, like Chandler and Clapton).
Episode two, like, totally blew my fuckin' mind dude (as it were).
As for the distinction between rock 'n roll and ROCK, well it's kind of stupid.
Obviously, they're not going to put Elvis in the same show as Lou Reed. They just aren't.
It would've been much better if a new term had been invented for what came after The Beatles.
posted by chuckdarwin at 2:03 AM on May 29, 2007
The series has been pretty good so far, thanks to some stunning archive footage and great interviews - they've managed to get access to everyone - but the breathless, over-simplified analysis gets pretty irritating. That's how telly works, I suppose.
Historically, Rock n Roll started in America in the 1950s, and didn't take off in Great Britain until the 1960s
I dunno about that - my dad and uncle still argue about the ownership of Buddy Holly EPs and the like, that they bought with their pocket money in the 50s (being dim, they used to initial their records, which might have made more sense if they didn't have the same initials). If little kids were buying the stuff, it seems safe to say that the genre had taken off. Unless you mean in terms of bands rather than audience, in which case... I shouldn't have bothered with this comment!
posted by jack_mo at 2:10 AM on May 29, 2007
Historically, Rock n Roll started in America in the 1950s, and didn't take off in Great Britain until the 1960s
I dunno about that - my dad and uncle still argue about the ownership of Buddy Holly EPs and the like, that they bought with their pocket money in the 50s (being dim, they used to initial their records, which might have made more sense if they didn't have the same initials). If little kids were buying the stuff, it seems safe to say that the genre had taken off. Unless you mean in terms of bands rather than audience, in which case... I shouldn't have bothered with this comment!
posted by jack_mo at 2:10 AM on May 29, 2007
Rock was huge in Britain in the fifties. I was always under the impression that what accounted for the sudden difference in output in Britain was access to imports of original blues records, leading to an odd hybrid of a British interpretation of a white America's interpretation of black America's music, mixed with a British interpretation of black America's music.
posted by vbfg at 2:17 AM on May 29, 2007
posted by vbfg at 2:17 AM on May 29, 2007
Rock was huge in Britain in the fifties.
Of course it was. What do you think the teenaged Beatles, Stones, Who and Kinks were listening to? Benny Goodman?
posted by psmealey at 2:46 AM on May 29, 2007
Of course it was. What do you think the teenaged Beatles, Stones, Who and Kinks were listening to? Benny Goodman?
posted by psmealey at 2:46 AM on May 29, 2007
Needs more Alice Cooper. A lot more.
posted by MarshallPoe at 4:48 AM on May 29, 2007
posted by MarshallPoe at 4:48 AM on May 29, 2007
If Bob Dylan is rock, why the hell is James Taylor not?
If we have to explain, you'll never understand.
posted by jonmc at 5:02 AM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite]
If we have to explain, you'll never understand.
posted by jonmc at 5:02 AM on May 29, 2007 [1 favorite]
Do they realize that rock began years before their first listed date (1962), in the United States? A history of rock thing that omits Elvis and Chuck Berry isn't actually about the history of rock.
The series chooses to draw a distinction between Rock (starting with The Who, Stones, Kinks, etc. reinterpreting the blues) and Rock & Roll - Elvis et al
All your concerns met with the 1977 BBC series All You Need Is Love: The History of Popular Music All sorts of stuff on Jazz, Blues, Vaudeville, Tin Pan Alley, early rock.....
posted by BozoBurgerBonanza at 5:10 AM on May 29, 2007
I'd never actually seen the wall in a live rendition of The Wall like that before. I'd read about it but it was cool actually seeing it in action.
I hadn't realized it was only done in 4 cities. I thought it was a "worldwide tour" kind of thing, but it was just NYC, LA, Germany, and the UK. Guess those minor details get lost in the passage of time.
posted by smackfu at 5:21 AM on May 29, 2007
I hadn't realized it was only done in 4 cities. I thought it was a "worldwide tour" kind of thing, but it was just NYC, LA, Germany, and the UK. Guess those minor details get lost in the passage of time.
posted by smackfu at 5:21 AM on May 29, 2007
I completely agree. Early Genesis had that Peter Gabriel influence, and he was just too experimental.
I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think "Invisible Touch" was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums.
posted by adipocere at 5:25 AM on May 29, 2007
I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think "Invisible Touch" was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums.
posted by adipocere at 5:25 AM on May 29, 2007
It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent.
Well, that's where Collins became the front man and Genesis became a pop group. I'll agree that Abacab was a return to some of their earlier themes, but Genesis was really nothing more than the Phil Collins solo project after Gabriel left.
I still think the Lamb Lies Down on Broadway has some pretty approachable moments on it. Genesis, even at their most outrageous, still never approached what Yes, Captain Beefheart and Frank Zappa were doing at the time (insofar as the prog rock label can be applied to all of them).
posted by psmealey at 5:29 AM on May 29, 2007
Well, that's where Collins became the front man and Genesis became a pop group. I'll agree that Abacab was a return to some of their earlier themes, but Genesis was really nothing more than the Phil Collins solo project after Gabriel left.
I still think the Lamb Lies Down on Broadway has some pretty approachable moments on it. Genesis, even at their most outrageous, still never approached what Yes, Captain Beefheart and Frank Zappa were doing at the time (insofar as the prog rock label can be applied to all of them).
posted by psmealey at 5:29 AM on May 29, 2007
the fact is the Beatles, the Stones, and the Who came over here and showed us how it's done
Yup, it went kinda like this:
Those dumb white Americans with all that money don't listen to this remarkable heritage of black music that's right under their noses. Why don't we make like Pat Boone, sanitize it and sell it all back to them?
And we've been doing it ever since.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:45 AM on May 29, 2007
Yup, it went kinda like this:
Those dumb white Americans with all that money don't listen to this remarkable heritage of black music that's right under their noses. Why don't we make like Pat Boone, sanitize it and sell it all back to them?
And we've been doing it ever since.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:45 AM on May 29, 2007
Historically, Rock n Roll started in America in the 1950s, and didn't take off in Great Britain until the 1960s
Ahem.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:49 AM on May 29, 2007
Ahem.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:49 AM on May 29, 2007
PeterMcDermott, obviously Brits, like teenagers in lots of countries, were listening to rock and roll in the 50's, but it was almost exclusively American sounds they were listening to, until Johnny Kidd & the Pirates (who were probably the UK's first legit rock stars and even they, good as they were, were heavily derivative of Berry/Presley?holly et al)
posted by jonmc at 6:56 AM on May 29, 2007
posted by jonmc at 6:56 AM on May 29, 2007
My question is this:
What was the first song that rocked?
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:13 AM on May 29, 2007
What was the first song that rocked?
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:13 AM on May 29, 2007
I'm fairly sure some caveman tapped out the riff to 'Louie Louie' on a rock with a stick, dude.
posted by jonmc at 7:16 AM on May 29, 2007
posted by jonmc at 7:16 AM on May 29, 2007
If we have to explain, you'll never understand.
posted by jonmc at 8:02 AM on May 29
Amen
posted by ob at 7:23 AM on May 29, 2007
posted by jonmc at 8:02 AM on May 29
Amen
posted by ob at 7:23 AM on May 29, 2007
I don't care who did it first. The British did it best.
posted by pracowity at 7:33 AM on May 29, 2007
posted by pracowity at 7:33 AM on May 29, 2007
I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think "Invisible Touch" was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums.
Bwa ha ha ha.
posted by jokeefe at 8:06 AM on May 29, 2007
Bwa ha ha ha.
posted by jokeefe at 8:06 AM on May 29, 2007
I actually like a few of the Phil Collins era Genesis numbers, 'Abacab' is rhythmically nice and tight and interesting and 'Man On The Corner' is probably Collins best vocal. Not earthshaking by any means, but not bad at all.
posted by jonmc at 8:13 AM on May 29, 2007
posted by jonmc at 8:13 AM on May 29, 2007
Christy, take off your robe. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. Sabrina, remove your dress. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Sabrina, why don't you, uh, dance a little. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I've heard in rock. Christy, get down on your knees so Sabrina can see your asshole. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. Sabrina, don't just stare at it, eat it. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite.
posted by chuckdarwin at 10:06 AM on May 29, 2007
posted by chuckdarwin at 10:06 AM on May 29, 2007
« Older The War Prayer | Ryan Lobo's photoblog Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by chuckdarwin at 6:51 PM on May 28, 2007