Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Why we like the old music...

Expand Messages
  • dj faké
    I ve read a lot of emotion lately about this topic, New vs. Old. Sadly Pip Pyle s death reminds us that old is in fact much closer to us than new.
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I've read a lot of emotion lately about this topic, New vs. Old. Sadly
      Pip Pyle's death reminds us that "old" is in fact much closer to us than
      new. Considering almost every musician of the "era" is now approaching
      60, these passings will unfortunately be a much more common occurrence.

      But one thing that has been running through my head is "Why do we listen
      to the Old Music"? I for one spend far too much time listening and
      documenting it on my website, www.progressiverock.com.

      It's true, that many of us would rather listen to the old Hatfield or
      Magma records than worry about new bands, or even new albums by the old
      bands. I find - perhaps if you exclude most from this list (!) - that
      most people become attached to the music that hit them in the
      teens/twenties. Admittedly, when listening back over the "progressive"
      catalog, there certainly is something about those compositions that came
      "first", and most certainly something about the musical spirit of the
      "twenty-something male" that created them. Of course, good music can be
      timeless, but is there an air of nostalgia in all this?

      Your thoughts?

      c



      > is there any wonder that they use their old names?
      >
      > Like I said to Meidad in a different thread: "Do you want these people
      > to
      > just crawl away and die? They are trying to make new music."
      >
      --
    • Renato Moraes
      C and all, I do like some old stuff, but I am always discovering new GOOD stuff. I was shocked when I saw Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, The Claudia Quintet, the
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 30, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        C and all,

        I do like some old stuff, but I am always discovering new GOOD stuff.

        I was shocked when I saw Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, The Claudia Quintet, the new King Crimson (that always play what they are most recently).

        I do like what Present is doing, Roger is making Present´s music a bit more accessible to try to gather new public and I like what is doing.

        Bands like Guapo, Hamster Theatre, One Shot, Combat Astronomy, Miasma, etc etc are all new and doing interesting music, even if they have some influence from other music.

        If you ask to MAP, I am sure he will be abel to write you down a list with, at least, 100 new bands that is doing good stuff.

        If we think that Magma WAS 100% original during early 70´s because they were not playing anything like Yes, Soft machine or King Crimson, we just need to take a look at Orff and Stravinsky that we will find their influence outside the rock scene.

        Yes, I do like old stuff, but a lot of new and good music is being available everyday.

        my 2 cents

        Rgds
        Renato

        dj faké <djfake@...> wrote:

        I've read a lot of emotion lately about this topic, New vs. Old. Sadly
        Pip Pyle's death reminds us that "old" is in fact much closer to us than
        new. Considering almost every musician of the "era" is now approaching
        60, these passings will unfortunately be a much more common occurrence.

        But one thing that has been running through my head is "Why do we listen
        to the Old Music"? I for one spend far too much time listening and
        documenting it on my website, www.progressiverock.com.

        It's true, that many of us would rather listen to the old Hatfield or
        Magma records than worry about new bands, or even new albums by the old
        bands. I find - perhaps if you exclude most from this list (!) - that
        most people become attached to the music that hit them in the
        teens/twenties. Admittedly, when listening back over the "progressive"
        catalog, there certainly is something about those compositions that came
        "first", and most certainly something about the musical spirit of the
        "twenty-something male" that created them. Of course, good music can be
        timeless, but is there an air of nostalgia in all this?

        Your thoughts?

        c

        > is there any wonder that they use their old names?
        >
        > Like I said to Meidad in a different thread: "Do you want these people
        > to
        > just crawl away and die? They are trying to make new music."
        >
        --






        ---------------------------------
        Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Michael Feathers
        Don t forget Jaga Jazzist. I can t get enough of them. Best stuff this side of Soft Machine to me.
        Message 3 of 9 , Aug 30, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Don't forget Jaga Jazzist. I can't get enough of them. Best stuff this
          side of Soft Machine to me.

          Renato Moraes wrote:

          > C and all,
          >
          > I do like some old stuff, but I am always discovering new GOOD stuff.
          >
          > I was shocked when I saw Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, The Claudia Quintet, the new King Crimson (that always play what they are most recently).
          >
          > I do like what Present is doing, Roger is making Present´s music a bit more accessible to try to gather new public and I like what is doing.
          >
          > Bands like Guapo, Hamster Theatre, One Shot, Combat Astronomy, Miasma, etc etc are all new and doing interesting music, even if they have some influence from other music.
          >
          > If you ask to MAP, I am sure he will be abel to write you down a list with, at least, 100 new bands that is doing good stuff.
          >
          > If we think that Magma WAS 100% original during early 70´s because they were not playing anything like Yes, Soft machine or King Crimson, we just need to take a look at Orff and Stravinsky that we will find their influence outside the rock scene.
          >
          > Yes, I do like old stuff, but a lot of new and good music is being available everyday.
          >
          > my 2 cents
          >
          > Rgds
          > Renato
          >
          >dj faké <djfake@...> wrote:
          >
          >I've read a lot of emotion lately about this topic, New vs. Old. Sadly
          >Pip Pyle's death reminds us that "old" is in fact much closer to us than
          >new. Considering almost every musician of the "era" is now approaching
          >60, these passings will unfortunately be a much more common occurrence.
          >
          >But one thing that has been running through my head is "Why do we listen
          >to the Old Music"? I for one spend far too much time listening and
          >documenting it on my website, www.progressiverock.com.
          >
          >It's true, that many of us would rather listen to the old Hatfield or
          >Magma records than worry about new bands, or even new albums by the old
          >bands. I find - perhaps if you exclude most from this list (!) - that
          >most people become attached to the music that hit them in the
          >teens/twenties. Admittedly, when listening back over the "progressive"
          >catalog, there certainly is something about those compositions that came
          >"first", and most certainly something about the musical spirit of the
          >"twenty-something male" that created them. Of course, good music can be
          >timeless, but is there an air of nostalgia in all this?
          >
          >Your thoughts?
          >
          >c
          >
          >
          >
          >>is there any wonder that they use their old names?
          >>
          >>Like I said to Meidad in a different thread: "Do you want these people
          >>to
          >>just crawl away and die? They are trying to make new music."
          >>
          >>
          >>
        • Michael Anton Parker
          ... Don t forget Tim Berne s Hard Cell and Science Friction! Probably the only thing I d say is actually better than Soft Machine! Mike np: Skip Bifferty
          Message 4 of 9 , Aug 30, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            On 8/30/06, Michael Feathers <mfeathers@...> wrote:
            > Don't forget Jaga Jazzist. I can't get enough of them. Best stuff this
            > side of Soft Machine to me.

            Don't forget Tim Berne's Hard Cell and Science Friction! Probably the
            only thing I'd say is actually better than Soft Machine!

            Mike

            np: Skip Bifferty
          • Michael Feathers
            ... Okay, so I see The Sublime And by Tim Bern s Science Friction ** Is that what I need?
            Message 5 of 9 , Aug 30, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Michael Anton Parker wrote:

              >On 8/30/06, Michael Feathers <mfeathers@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >> Don't forget Jaga Jazzist. I can't get enough of them. Best stuff this
              >> side of Soft Machine to me.
              >>
              >>
              >
              >Don't forget Tim Berne's Hard Cell and Science Friction! Probably the
              >only thing I'd say is actually better than Soft Machine!
              >
              >
              Okay, so I see 'The Sublime And' by Tim Bern's Science Friction **

              Is that what I need?
            • Michael Anton Parker
              ... [MAP] yeah, you need it pretty badly! actually, that is possibly the best starting point, but in a way all the Hard Cell and Science Friction albums are
              Message 6 of 9 , Aug 30, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                On 8/30/06, Michael Feathers <mfeathers@...> wrote:
                >
                > Michael Anton Parker wrote:
                >
                > >On 8/30/06, Michael Feathers <mfeathers@...> wrote:
                > >
                > >> Don't forget Jaga Jazzist. I can't get enough of them. Best stuff this
                > >> side of Soft Machine to me.
                > >
                > >Don't forget Tim Berne's Hard Cell and Science Friction! Probably the
                > >only thing I'd say is actually better than Soft Machine!
                > >
                > Okay, so I see 'The Sublime And' by Tim Bern's Science Friction **
                > Is that what I need?

                [MAP] yeah, you need it pretty badly! actually, that is possibly the
                best starting point, but in a way all the Hard Cell and Science
                Friction albums are equally representative and mind-blowing.

                Mike

                np: Nico - Desert Shore
              • StoOdin101@aol.com
                The fact that people tend to like the music of their teen/young adult years all the rest of their life is well documented. You excluded those on this list, and
                Message 7 of 9 , Aug 30, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  The fact that people tend to like the music of their teen/young adult years all the rest of their life is well documented. You excluded those on this list, and it's true that we don't really fit that profile (I just spent 100 bucks on new classical discs by composers I just barely know/don't know at all, for instance, and prior to that, bought 4 discs by 1920s/30s swing revival band Mora's Modern Rhythmists -- neither of these would have been considered when I was 15-25, say.) -- yet we do come back to Rotters Club, to Ummagumma, to Wurdah Itah, to Tarkus, etc. again and again.

                  I suppose the difference between that and what I see in many people (who are NOT ON THIS LIST, so let none take offense and say "How dare you, how dare you" as happens EVERY TIME I get on this soapbox) is that the Avg Joe ONLY listens to the things he heard as a kid. This is why you have Beatles, Jackson Browne and Kiss stuff playing in grocery stores now, along with the occasional Perry Como or Bangles track...effort to appeal to all the generations who are shopping. Perry will fade with the WWII generation, and the 80s stuff will increase as that generation moves into the majority, finally leaving the progrockers to play in nursing homes. And the shoppers are happy with that, but if you threw unfamiliar stuff into the mix, it would do nothing but annoy and confuse.

                  The same is true in ANY walk of life, practically. I went with my sister and her husband on a trip to Michigan not long ago, and they cannot understand why I have to have NEW road trip music every time we make a trip together. (This time my contribution was Revelling Crooks, Folkabbestia, Balakan, Mora's Modern Etc, V.Poulsens Kapel and Kahol, all bands I've discovered since Jan 2006, none of them "prog."). They would be perfectly content with the same old Beatles/Eagles/CCR/Styx/P.Floyd music that they've heard in the car since they first HAD a car.

                  And as far as new musicians doing new things under an old name: I think K.A is JUST AS GOOD as MDK, Kohntarkosz, Wurdah Itah, and if it had been recorded in 1974 it would be considered just as much a classic. It _would_ have Klaus Blasquiz and Jannik Top, probably. And it would be recorded in the La Brea tar pits and smother the drums beneath the muck, just like most of their output. To me, Magma stops when Vander stops it -- until then, Magma is whatever configuration of musicians Vander assembles and calls, by common consent, Magma. It changed several times during its "salad days." Ditto King Crimson/Fripp, Heldon/Pinhas, Present/Trigaux, UZ/Denis, etc. When these guys join Pip Pyle, Man Of Zinc, in the Great Inevitable, then the bands become cover bands. Not until. And even then, this begs the question: would such a band be just as honourable as a symphony orchestra, which does nothing but keep the music of OTHER PEOPLE alive? No one demeans the Philadelphia Orchestra as a "cover band," yet all they do is play music by men who are, for the most part, long since dead...

                  np: Stephen Dankner - "Hurricane". You know how if there had never been anything called "prog," Wobbler would really be onto something? Well, if there had never been anything called "late Romantic classical music," Dankner would be in the classical forefront. It's amazing how well he has his Richard Strauss, Hector Berlioz and Sergei Rachmaninoff down. I like this disclaimer in the liner notes to "Hurricane," written in 1999 as an ode to NEW ORLEANS WEATHER (?!) -- "I am not infatuated with this destructive force of itself, only with its power to stir the imagination and captivate the emotions." This disc was recorded in 2000, so he hopefully spared himself the sort of brickbats Stockhausen endured right after 9/11/2001...prescient!




                  ___________*______________*______________*_____*____________*_________*

                  "The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it's still on the list."


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: djfake@...
                  To: avant-progressive@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 7:48 AM
                  Subject: [avant-progressive] Why we like the old music...



                  I've read a lot of emotion lately about this topic, New vs. Old. Sadly
                  Pip Pyle's death reminds us that "old" is in fact much closer to us than
                  new. Considering almost every musician of the "era" is now approaching
                  60, these passings will unfortunately be a much more common occurrence.

                  But one thing that has been running through my head is "Why do we listen
                  to the Old Music"? I for one spend far too much time listening and
                  documenting it on my website, www.progressiverock.com.

                  It's true, that many of us would rather listen to the old Hatfield or
                  Magma records than worry about new bands, or even new albums by the old
                  bands. I find - perhaps if you exclude most from this list (!) - that
                  most people become attached to the music that hit them in the
                  teens/twenties. Admittedly, when listening back over the "progressive"
                  catalog, there certainly is something about those compositions that came
                  "first", and most certainly something about the musical spirit of the
                  "twenty-something male" that created them. Of course, good music can be
                  timeless, but is there an air of nostalgia in all this?

                  Your thoughts?

                  c

                  > is there any wonder that they use their old names?
                  >
                  > Like I said to Meidad in a different thread: "Do you want these people
                  > to
                  > just crawl away and die? They are trying to make new music."
                  >
                  --



                  ________________________________________________________________________
                  Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Michael Feathers
                  I think a lot about the dilemma of musicans like Pip who did brilliant work in the early 20s and spend the rest of their lives doing work that they wish was as
                  Message 8 of 9 , Aug 30, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I think a lot about the dilemma of musicans like Pip who did brilliant
                    work in the early 20s and spend the rest of their lives doing work that
                    they wish was as popular. I always want to give them a fair shake. I
                    buy their albums, I'm loyal, but often I have to admit to myself that I
                    often listen to their later work purely out of loyalty. I just don't
                    like it as much as the early work. I expect a musician's later work to
                    be a little more laid back, but I don't think that is the problem. The
                    thing I notice is that late work just tends to be less melodically
                    interesting.

                    One theory that I have, particularly about music is that there's
                    something built into us as humans which makes us better able to come up
                    with good melodies when we are younger. Maybe it's something we
                    evolved.. we tap into this ability when we're younger so that we can,
                    well, attract a mate with our compositional prowess and have children.
                    I suppose this theory makes avant-prog an unbelievable ironic venture.
                    I can't believe the music has gotten many of its performers laid, but
                    still, I think there may be something to this theory.

                    The other theory I have is sort of like the theory that everyone has at
                    least one good novel in them. In much the same way, maybe we all have
                    one or two good melodies in us: if we're lucky. Very gifted people have
                    more, but the rest of us, we have those few melodies and the chance for
                    a few more, but it's all heavily dependent on who we're working with,
                    how much energy we feel and other tricks of fate. A good band can,
                    collectively, come up with good musical ideas for maybe five or ten
                    years before they exhaust themselves through familiarity and it all
                    falls apart. It's chance, and we only hear about the bands that are
                    lucky.. all their stars align.. they can compose, get along, and play,
                    and it all works until something odd forces it to dissolve.

                    Another theory is that artists become popular playing the part of their
                    tastes that they think people want to hear and latter they attempt the
                    rests of their tastes and those tastes alienate earlier fans. I know
                    many people might think that this doesn't apply to avant-prog, but I
                    think it does. Many of our heroes started young and they fell into a
                    movement.. at that point their tastes and the tastes of their fans
                    aligned.. they pursed their musical vision but eventually their tastes
                    changed, or they felt boxed in and couldn't play things outside fans
                    expectations.

                    Dunno.. they're just theories.
                  • spacepiano
                    ... up ... children. ... venture. ... I have enjoyed Michael and StoOdin101 s posts on this topic. Watching the new Magma DVD, I was struck by the realization
                    Message 9 of 9 , Sep 1, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > One theory that I have, particularly about music is that there's
                      > something built into us as humans which makes us better able to come
                      up
                      > with good melodies when we are younger. Maybe it's something we
                      > evolved.. we tap into this ability when we're younger so that we can,
                      > well, attract a mate with our compositional prowess and have
                      children.
                      > I suppose this theory makes avant-prog an unbelievable ironic
                      venture.
                      > I can't believe the music has gotten many of its performers laid, but
                      > still, I think there may be something to this theory.

                      I have enjoyed Michael and StoOdin101's posts on this topic.

                      Watching the new Magma DVD, I was struck by the realization that
                      current Magma bassist Philippe Bussonnet is probably the best-looking
                      male performer, on any instrument, in the avant-progressive genre. I
                      believe I read he is involved with one of the current Magmoid singers,
                      but in any event I rate his reproductive chances as very good. Surely
                      *he* is one of the few who has gotten laid because of avant-prog.

                      Drew
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.