Pretentious music??

Great post, Ken. You'd be thinking of Keith Tippett. He also played on all of the Lizard album (Cat Food was clearly a preview for that album). Bolero is my fave track on that album and Keith's playing is a big reason for that. It's poodling along as a quasi classical piece and then Keith slips in this subtle, offbeat jazz chord that changes the entire mood leading to the song morphing into ... um, prog bolero trad :)

I wasn't mad on Andy McCulloch's playing at times on that album but he had some moments, notably that gorgeous cymbal crash at the end of Bolero, and he was great in Cirkus at times and played some very nifty bits in Indoor Games.

Oh yeah, Frippy is an odd guy. In a way he reminds me of Sheldon in the Big Bang Theory. I have a soft spot for socially inept but insanely brainy men :)

I think you hit the nail on the head re: Brit & US scenes, something I was groping for on the other thread. That's why I'm so keen on European music - it's less earthy and more pretentious!

Yeah, there was a RnR orthodoxy, now that you mention it. IMO a lot of that was created by risk averse record companies looking for formulas and critics who were stifling in their conservative "rebellion". If you're a rebel because being a rebel is compulsory are you really a rebel?

Had a big smile on my face reading the last sentence of that post - ha!
 
It was also the Mellotron. That's why I love The Moody Blues. You get out the Mellotron and it's Strawberry Field's Forever . . . there's no sense of realism left.

The other bold instrument that was such a fixture to early prog, and also soul jazz, was the flute. The flute is not a masculine instrument. Plato warned long ago about the seductive dangers of flute music and its ability to make reality disappear.

I was reading on Wikipedia that Tippet had an early jazz band with Elton Dean. The Centipede orchestra was his creation.
 
Yeah, no one could ever replace it, not Moog, not Yamaha not Korg. :)

That's because it was actual, 'real' recordings. :p There nothing like real live recording . . .

The Moodies were actually the template for many of the early prog bands, like Genesis and King Crimson. Genesis didn't use the mellotron as much; but Crimson really modeled themselves after what the Moodies were doing.

One of the differences I think between early Crimson and Bruford Crimson is the change that happened from well-rounded musicianship to virtuosity in prog. The Moodies, like the Beatels, exemplified a consort of musicians who could dabble on various instruments if need be. The concentration was not on virtuosity but on timbre and sound scape painting:string, flute, mellotron, or sitar. In some sense, it was sound tracking.

Crimson took up that mantle adding Sax, English horn, chamber orchestra, jazz improvisation, sometimes with a N'Orleans flair. You had the same pseudo romantic poetic imagery, sea imagery, love and armageddon.

Then Mahavishnu Orchestra came about, and things changed. For me, the earlier albums worked better because it was silly pretense masking as great art that was sometimes a lot of fun. I think they were quite a aware at how sardonic it often was. I think the latter stuff was conceived as art. It tried to be avant-garde but came of as silly pretense and seemed overly simplistic in comparison to what others were doing at the time. I think if Jamie Muir had not left the band things would have been very different. And look what happened to John Wetton.
 
Yeah, no one could ever replace it, not Moog, not Yamaha not Korg. :)

That's because it was actual, 'real' recordings. :p There nothing like real live recording . . .

Yes, they were fine-sounding things although apparently awful to tour with because they were fragile and kept breaking down.

One of the differences I think between early Crimson and Bruford Crimson is the change that happened from well-rounded musicianship to virtuosity in prog. The Moodies, like the Beatels, exemplified a consort of musicians who could dabble on various instruments if need be. The concentration was not on virtuosity but on timbre and sound scape painting:string, flute, mellotron, or sitar.

Great observation, Ken - "the change that happened from well-rounded musicianship to virtuosity". Not just in prog but also in jazz, fusion and metal, even funk. All for the worse IMO.

While the lauded virtuoso had been around for a long time, great musicianship was till largely a tool to provide scope and depth to performances. In time virtuosity started being focused on in its own right - the scope and depth mattered less than the ability to play many notes with challenging syncopation, modes, intervals etc. The attitude became more sport-like with ability being as valued, sometimes more so, as artistry. Unless it's mind-blowing like MO, I'll go for artistry, ideas, atmosphere and emotions over ability every time.

That's the area where I ran into trouble in the infamous Feel vs Technique thread in my early days at the forum. If I'd articulated my ideas then as well as you just did, then my comments may not have been misinterpreted as anti-technique. The whole idea of anti-technique is perverse (which has its own appeal and character in a way, (eg. early punk) but technique's elevation from being a tool to being sought after in its own right didn't give me joy.

To be fair, Bruford era Crimson was far from being all about technique. In fact, I'd argue that the technique on display in Lizard was higher than than in the mid-70s band. The music in LTIA had an exotic, edgy, introverted character that resonated strongly with me. It's as though all those tritones and crazy sounds expressed a dark side of my soul that wasn't allowed overt expression (unless I fancied spending time behind bars :)


Crimson took up that mantle adding Sax, English horn, chamber orchestra, jazz improvisation, sometimes with a N'Orleans flair. You had the same pseudo romantic poetic imagery, sea imagery, love and armageddon.

Then Mahavishnu Orchestra came about, and things changed. For me, the earlier albums worked better because it was silly pretense masking as great art that was sometimes a lot of fun. I think they were quite a aware at how sardonic it often was. I think the latter stuff was conceived as art. It tried to be avant-garde but came of as silly pretense and seemed overly simplistic in comparison to what others were doing at the time. I think if Jamie Muir had not left the band things would have been very different. And look what happened to John Wetton.

Ken, you are calmly and methodically dissecting my heart! MY Crims! No way, José :)

I don't think KC were sardonic in the early days. They were simpler times, when bands could sing "All You Need Is Love" with a straight face, and the Crims were even more naive still :) The were aiming to be arty right from the start ... elaborate arrangements set to Pete Sinfield's poetry.

Look at the idiotic, crude schoolyardish nyah nyah lyrics in Ladies of the Road in the 70s. Are you going to tell me that these guys were worldly enough to be sardonic about their vaguely analogous "purple pipers" and "yellow jesters" in 1969? They were simply that naive and pretentious, and I thought it was fabulous. Still do :)

Their later pretensions in the mid 70s were consistent with that naivete. But ultimately, none of this silliness would have worked except that the group consistently provided some of the most varied, imaginative and wonderful timbres and textures around. The 80s incarnation continued in that tradition.

If the music was more modest, less pretentious, then I doubt I'd have been interested. Good taste is wonderful but without inspiration (or a healthy infusion of conscious artiness :) tastefulness can be like a straitjacket that results in one-dimensional, predictable songs where you know what it will sound like at the end after hearing the first few bars. That might suit Rolling Stone reviewers but it doesn't suit me :)
 
Good taste seems to mean restricted taste in this instance. All music that's well-constructed deserves to be enjoyed.
 
Ken, you are calmly and methodically dissecting my heart! MY Crims! No way, José :)

I don't think KC were sardonic in the early days. They were simpler times, when bands could sing "All You Need Is Love" with a straight face, and the Crims were even more naive still :) The were aiming to be arty right from the start ... elaborate arrangements set to Pete Sinfield's poetry.

Look at the idiotic, crude schoolyardish nyah nyah lyrics in Ladies of the Road in the 70s. Are you going to tell me that these guys were worldly enough to be sardonic about their vaguely analogous "purple pipers" and "yellow jesters" in 1969? They were simply that naive and pretentious, and I thought it was fabulous. Still do :)

Their later pretensions in the mid 70s were consistent with that naivete. But ultimately, none of this silliness would have worked except that the group consistently provided some of the most varied, imaginative and wonderful timbres and textures around. The 80s incarnation continued in that tradition.

If the music was more modest, less pretentious, then I doubt I'd have been interested. Good taste is wonderful but without inspiration (or a healthy infusion of conscious artiness :) tastefulness can be like a straitjacket that results in one-dimensional, predictable songs where you know what it will sound like at the end after hearing the first few bars. That might suit Rolling Stone reviewers but it doesn't suit me :)


Sorry about that.:)

For me, the enjoyment is in the sardonic aspect. I was going to say that it speaks to the first question, if it is consciously pretentious does that take away from its enjoyment as opposed to being pretentious through naivete?

The Moody Blues were pretentious not only in their overly orchestrated rock and roll; but also that they did believe they were creating 'great art.' Remember the House of Four Doors: Baroque, Classical, Romantic, The Moody Blues, "Legend of a Mind." Yes similarly came to believe with CTTE and TFTO that they were creating "great music." Whereas Emerson has always been upfront with the fact that he didn't see his music as akin to the great classical masters or the great jazz artists. I've always said that the music does have a place in the popular classical realm, and have spoken to Keith about this. As an aside, you had those recordings of David Palmer, which in my book didn't work because even if you are playing rock and roll with a full orchestra, the drumming needs to be over the top. :) all those guys Bonham, Paice, Moon, Palmer, Bruford, Giles, Hiseman etc. were full of classical gestures and classical overtures in their playing. I think that is another thing that separates Europe from the States.

It would be fun to ask Fripp of Bruford what they thought about the question . . .
Ladies of the Road is an interesting example because it is one part "Why Don't We Do It in the Road" and one part "Norwegian Wood," which was about a one night stand. They had to know what they were doing there. The sax in Crimson often beckons back to Coltrane. I really think they were conscious of this, and many of these guys probably had more musical chops than they led onto. It was a big thing to be a naive romantic back then, I kind of raw talent. So musicians often did not want to admit they had been taking lessons at the conservatory..
 
Back
Top