Grex Music2 Conference

Item 94: Progressive Rock

Entered by teflon on Wed Nov 5 01:24:55 1997:

I'm just curious to see if any other serious fans of progressive rock are in
Grex.  Some progressive rock artists include Pink Floyd, King Crimson,
Marrilion, and my personal favorite, Fish (Yes, spelled with an 'F'.).  I'm
more interested in the more obscure bands, but if you have anything to say
on the matter, feel free...
98 responses total.

#1 of 98 by lumen on Wed Nov 5 02:13:41 1997:

*sigh*  More music that I should catch up on..and I have so very little
disposable income :(  Elaborate.. I am very aware Pink Floyd was doing far-out
stuff in the 70's, but how are they now?


#2 of 98 by mziemba on Wed Nov 5 05:12:01 1997:

Cool, I like this item!

Well some familiar bands to add to the list would be Styx, Yes, ELP,
Jethro Tull, Moody Blues, The Alan Parsons Project, Genesis, Queen,
Supertramp, Todd Rundgren... 
 
Some less familiar acts would be Ozric Tentacles, Mike Oldfield, Manfred
Mann's Earth Band, The Mission (U.K.), Tears For Fears, The The, World
Party...

One that would fall in partially in this category, but probaby in a lot
of others, would be Steely Dan...

I'm working off a definition of "progressive rock" as music with ambitious
structure, possible classical leanings and symphonic involvement, high
literary/thematic/symbolic content, longer pieces, etc. 
 

           


        


#3 of 98 by mcnally on Wed Nov 5 06:02:25 1997:

  I doubt I'd really lump Steely Dan in with progressive rock, although
  I suppose I can see a couple of similarities.  

  I went through a big King Crimson phase when I first discovered them
  around seven or eight years ago.  I still like them and listen to their
  albums occasionally but have mostly moved on to other stuff for my more
  frequent listening and for the most part have been disappointed with the
  releases from the band's latest incarnation.  They're probably the only
  one of the mainline progressive rock bands that I ever really got into.

  I've got a recommendation for a great album most people haven't heard
  (or ever heard *of* or seen, for that matter..)  It may or may not fall
  into the "progressive rock" category but I think most people would like
  it who like that sort of music..  The album is called "Spirit of Eden"
  from the British band Talk Talk [some of you are probably thinking --
  "didn't they have a couple of forgettable synth-pop hits in the 80s?"
  well, yes, but this album Isn't Like That.  Trust me.  The bad news is
  that it's probably only available as an import but I really do recommend
  it (but do not give a blanket recommendation for all of their stuff..)]


#4 of 98 by diznave on Wed Nov 5 20:30:33 1997:

I agree Mark, good item. I really love Pink Floyd. That is, I love everything
of theirs I've heard. Which does not include any post Roger Waters Floyd
(well, I heard the live album from their first post Waters tour...it was
okay). For those of you out there, who are fans of Pink Floyd, and haven't
heard any pre _Dark Side Of The Moon_ Floyd, you're really missing out on some
out there stuff. I'm still looking for the More soundtrack, and the _Live AT
Pompeii_ album, but their other early stuff I've heard, and it's incredible.
Syd Barrett's insanity is evident on their first album _Piper At The Gates
Of Dawn_. I'm not too familiar with King Crimson, but I've heard so much about
them, I really *need* to check 'em out. By the way, Jon, Pink Floyd's most
far out stuff was done in '67, '68, and '69. their 70's stuff was mellow and
mainstream (in comparison).


#5 of 98 by teflon on Wed Nov 5 20:44:05 1997:

Yeah, I haven't had much of a chance to listen to Pink Floyd, but what I have
heard (bits and pieces of 'The Wall') I really liked.  I am interested in the
classical roots of many of these artists.  I often wonder just who they
are drawing stuff from.  It strikes me that the likes of Stravinsky, Ives,
and Briton influence them more than Bach or Mozart.  Note the 'more than';
I'm not saying that progressive rock artists weren't influenced at all by
them, just not as much... <Cricket goes off to mumble something under his
breath.  Ramble Ramble>


#6 of 98 by lumen on Thu Nov 6 00:47:01 1997:

You see--- I haven't even heard 'The Wall' yet!  Mark mentioned some great
bands I had forgotten were progressive.  I'm just too poor to catch up-- my
music collection sucks and I have little disposable income.
(lumen is a formal music student-- and that can be expensive enough)


#7 of 98 by snowth on Thu Nov 6 02:21:27 1997:

Tef, you are *borrowing* my The Wall. Tomorrow. You have no choice dear. (I
bought this cd after listening to 30 sec. of it that Dan put on a mix tape.
I figured that if I liked the 30 sec. that much, the rest of it should be
fine. And It was. <smile>)


#8 of 98 by diznave on Thu Nov 6 03:08:06 1997:

Tricia, for some reason I can't really clearly explain, I'm not a big fan of
the wall. This album was mostly Roger Waters, meaning that he wrote the entire
thing. The members of the band, at the time of _The Wall_ were seriously at
odds with each other (well, mainly Gilmore and Waters). This album just
doesn't convey a sense that they enjoyed playing together any more (and
indeed, after one other album that Waters also entirely wrote, _The Final
Cut_, Waters left the Floyd). Jon, for a first Floyd album, I highly recommend
_Dark Side Of The Moon_, _Animals_, or _Wish You Were Here_.


#9 of 98 by goose2 on Thu Nov 6 17:42:21 1997:

Actually I believe Bob Ezrin helped write a great deal of the Wall with
Roger.  The studio legends are that many of the guitar solos and such
on the record weren't even played by Gilmour but by one of Ezrin's many
oft-used studio cats.  It is well known that Ezrin uses lots of anonymous
studio cats on albums which he works, but this fact was extremely downplayed
for the Wall.


#10 of 98 by diznave on Thu Nov 6 19:50:05 1997:

Okay, you're right, Christopher. I should have said that Roger was the only
member of Floyd who wrote songs for the album. I didn't know that about Bob's
"studio cats". I'm sure they tried their best to downplay it for _The Wall_.
I assume David played all the songs during the small handfull of shows theyu
did on _The Wall_ tour. 


#11 of 98 by void on Thu Nov 6 19:51:06 1997:

   i've never been a real big floyd fan.


#12 of 98 by goose2 on Thu Nov 6 21:03:53 1997:

RE#10 -- Yeah I guess he learned the parts. :-)  Although using "behind
the scenes" musicinas in live shows is another not that uncommon practice
that doesn't get discussed much.  It really messes with the illusions eh?


#13 of 98 by mziemba on Thu Nov 6 21:08:43 1997:

_The Final Cut_ was actually material culled from _The Wall_ sessions. 
Personally, although I like _The Wall_ a great deal, _The Final Cut_ is even
more impressive to me, mainly because it is more concise.
 
Gilmour, himself, does lots of studio work (Bryan Ferry, Pete Townshend, Kate
Bush...), so it wouldn't surprise me that he worked with other studio
musicians on projects, including _The Wall_.
 
I prefered Floyd before Waters left, as he's a brilliant lyricist.  It seemed,
however, that his desire to pursue cetain projects was pursued with such zeal
as to turn off the other members, so it's probably for the best that they
parted ways.  I do think that the other members gave Waters' material a little
more solid ground, and Waters gave their music good intellectual flight, so
I miss their group material.
 
One of albums that displayed a comfortable mix of their personalities is
_Meddle_, which I highly recommend.  They shared a lot of the songrwiting and
musical responsibilities, there, and it seemed that they got along much
better, then.


#14 of 98 by mziemba on Thu Nov 6 21:19:25 1997:

Some other groups to add to the progressive rock fold:  Red Rider and Saga,
two Canadian bands.  Red Rider was responsible for "Lunatic Fringe", which
can be found as a bonus track on the cool _Neruda_ album (in CD form).  Their
lead vocalist and guitarist, Tom Cochrane, went on to record the nauseatingly
overplayed "Life is a Highway".  Saga's claim to fame is "On the Loose", a
tune that got some airplay in the early 80s...


#15 of 98 by orinoco on Thu Nov 6 22:29:38 1997:

It's interesting, I'm not much of a Floyd fan either but I do get mistaken
for one a lot, because I wear a Division Bell t-shirt that I got used for a
costume in a play I was in.  As it turns out, Division Bell is widely hated
among Pink Floyd fans...how was I to know?  I still like the shirt though.

I'm definitely a King Crimson fan, although also not as fanatical as I once
was.  They were the first band that I was a real fan of, and the first actual
interesting rock music that I listened to, and there was a while when Crimson
albums vastly outnumbered the rest of my CD collection.  This is no longer
the case, but I still do like them, especially _Starless and Bible Black_ and
_Beat_.

Marillion and Fish, I've picked up some of teflon's fanaticism for.  I've
heard - and loved - Marillion's album _Script for a Jester's Tear_, and a few
Fish songs.  Yet another band that I should look into more, but lack of time
and money.



#16 of 98 by mcnally on Fri Nov 7 07:42:14 1997:

   Hmmm..  I think "Starless and Bible Black" is the King Crimson album
   I like least (at least of the pre-Vrooom stuff..)  My personal prefs
   are for "Lizard" and "Beat"..


#17 of 98 by orinoco on Fri Nov 7 22:59:29 1997:

Haven't heard Lizard...(this conversation sounds mighty familiar, actually)...
Yeah, _Beat_ is the first one I heard, and still what immediately springs to
mind when I think of King Crimson.  _Starless_ I hated at first, except for
Fracture, but it really does grow on you.  Or on me, at least.


#18 of 98 by krj on Sat Nov 8 00:30:46 1997:

I have a theory which holds that everyone ends up hating the music 
they listened to when they were sixteen years old.  When I was sixteen, 
I listened to Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd, ELP, and Yes.  So I'll just 
sort of sit this one out...  :)


#19 of 98 by lumen on Sat Nov 8 00:53:39 1997:

I ain't everyone :P


#20 of 98 by orinoco on Sat Nov 8 03:51:26 1997:

Hmm...well, I must say, Ken, you did have good taste as a 16-year-old.  
<wonders what went wrong :) >


#21 of 98 by mcnally on Sat Nov 8 04:15:35 1997:

 re #19:  give it time..

 I certainly can't serve as a counter-example to Ken's postulate
 and believe that it makes a certain amount of sense..


#22 of 98 by teflon on Sat Nov 8 04:46:43 1997:

As a sixteen year old, I dare say that I like the stuff well enough now. 
 I certainly hope that doesn't change, 'though I dare say it might if I 
go and over-play the stuff.  The main problem with that theory is this: 
 I like almost every kind of music, which means, according to your 
postulate, that I will become an exclusively Rap/R&B fan when I'm older. 
 Now, it is concievable that I might grow to like them, but dislike the 
other stuff?  Not likely.


#23 of 98 by diznave on Sat Nov 8 08:43:29 1997:

Dan, I consider myself a serious Pink Floyd fan, and I don't despise _Division
Bell_ (of course, I've never heard it).  ;->


#24 of 98 by krj on Sat Nov 8 08:44:40 1997:

I didn't mean to derail the progressive rock discussion; I'll start 
a new item for the drift about age if necessary.


#25 of 98 by orinoco on Sat Nov 8 16:49:05 1997:

Well, I don't know.  Some guy at Community was berating me the other day about
how it's an evil sell-out album and I should go listen to _Piper at the Gates
of Dawn_.  Not having heard either, I don't have much to say.


#26 of 98 by mziemba on Sat Nov 8 19:35:57 1997:

It's just that while Gilmour professed to want to continue Floyd for
artistic reasons, they've spent more time re-issuing and repackaging old
material than actually making new music:  two new albums versus two live
albums, one box set, one series of digital remasters, and one _Dark Side
of the Moon_ anniversary release. And the music they've put together
recently is about the equivalent of aural wallpaper.  Sounds more like
business, than art, to me...



#27 of 98 by diznave on Sun Nov 9 04:58:33 1997:

By the way, which one's Pink?


#28 of 98 by teflon on Mon Nov 10 02:24:04 1997:

<Tee hee>


#29 of 98 by teflon on Mon Nov 10 02:27:06 1997:

By the way, I misused the word 'postulate' didn't I?  <Cricket mumbles 
something about "Y'know, I just hate it when people try to make 
themselves look smart by useing big words.  Damn.">


#30 of 98 by lumen on Mon Nov 10 07:22:52 1997:

re #21:  There is music I loved as a little kid that I love all the more now,
and also, I have a theory that Depeche Mode serves a manic-depressive's taste
well, so there's little chance I will EVER give them up.  They were just
singing my song too well, and they still do..


#31 of 98 by mziemba on Mon Nov 10 09:42:01 1997:

Depeche Mode is too cool for me, these days...


#32 of 98 by lumen on Tue Nov 11 05:55:47 1997:

Maybe.  Ultra does smack of a little trendiness, but i still like it.


#33 of 98 by teflon on Fri Nov 14 19:49:59 1997:

Oh, wow!  I just bought Fish's latest album from SKR (On sale now at only
14.99!).  It's called "Sunsets Over Empire", and it's abso-bally-lutly
brillient!  It's far, far cooler than his previous album (that was released
in the US), "Internal Exile", which was cool, but didn't strike me as being
as good as it could have been.  Most of it struck me as formulaic, almost pop.
But "Sunsets" fixes all of that, and more.  Yes, Dan, it's coming to your
party tonight, and I'm going to force all of you to listen to it...  As for
the rest of you, it has gotten a fairly wide US release, so I insist you all
run out and buy it...  It even has a music video that you can play from your
computer (I haven't figured out how to get it to run smoothly yet, but Oh
Well).


#34 of 98 by mziemba on Fri Nov 14 22:45:03 1997:

Hmmm, intersting.  I might like to hear that one.


#35 of 98 by orinoco on Sat Nov 15 05:07:07 1997:

Well, it _didn't_ come, and I _haven't_ heard it.  Bring it in to Commie
Monday and we can inflict it on the student center.


#36 of 98 by teflon on Sat Nov 15 15:17:15 1997:

Sorry, I was in such a hurry out the door to go to the Indigo Girls concert
that I completely forgot it.  I will indeed bring it to the SC Monday. 
Bu-ha-haa... Actually, though, I'm a little bit hesitant to do that, being
as it doesn't really make for good background music.  As for you, Mark Z.,
Please do ('though if you can get your hands on a copy of "Script for a
Jesters
>Tear", by Marrillion, Fish's old band, you might want get that instead.  It's
every bit as good as "Sunsets", plus it has the superb instrumental work of
the rest of Marillion.)


#37 of 98 by mziemba on Sun Nov 16 07:51:05 1997:

I've hear _Script For a Jester's Tear_, and _Misplaced Childhood_.  I think
I've also heard _Fugazi_ and _Clutching at Straws_.  The first two are my
faves...


#38 of 98 by teflon on Tue Nov 18 02:11:05 1997:

Lucky.  You've heard more Marrillion stuff than I have.  Oh well, I'm young
yet.  Basically, I buy/reserve anything of thiers that I find in used music
stores.


#39 of 98 by mziemba on Tue Nov 18 06:57:14 1997:

_Script..._ and _Misplaced Childhood_ are definitely top-tier stuff.  _Fugazi_
is good, too.


#40 of 98 by teflon on Fri Nov 21 02:02:09 1997:

I've been looking into Fugazi... I've got a promise for a late B-Day present
of "Vigil in a Wilderness of Mirrors", which, BTW, is at SKR for a hugely
bloated price, but I'm currently consolodating my cashes to make a donation
to Marillions "Tour Fund".  Which incedently means signing me up for a "Tour
Fund CD", recorded live in Rochester, NY, by Marillion.  All H stuff, but
still looks to be pretty cool.  And if I'm making a donation to a great band?
All the better!


#41 of 98 by krj on Fri Nov 21 19:28:49 1997:

I thought that Fugazi kept the price of all their albums down to $9 or $10 
per CD...  ?


#42 of 98 by mziemba on Sat Nov 22 07:37:39 1997:

We're talking about the band Marillion, which has an album called _Fugazi_,
not the band, Fugazi...


#43 of 98 by teflon on Sat Nov 22 16:30:43 1997:

<Smile!>


#44 of 98 by orinoco on Sun Nov 23 17:44:38 1997:

Ah, the confusion continues.
Does 'Fugazi' have some significance that they're both referring to,
perchance?


#45 of 98 by mziemba on Mon Nov 24 20:26:35 1997:

I recall hearing that "fugazi" was supposed to mean "messed up".  I assume
that if it came from any language, it would be Japanese.  But I'm not sure...


#46 of 98 by orinoco on Wed Nov 26 01:39:50 1997:

Ah...


#47 of 98 by mziemba on Mon Dec 1 06:05:42 1997:

Okay, I was saving this one until December, to spare you the agony of one more
Chistmas thing to hassle with while the leaves were still green...
 
I'm sure you heard the progressive take on holiday tunes from last year,
courtesy of the Trans-Siberian Orchestra.  I spotted this in good numbers in
Meijer's, a few weeks ago.  Not sure I want to hear a whole album of
progressive holiday tunes, but, then again, what I heard so far was kinda
cool...


#48 of 98 by teflon on Tue Dec 2 02:18:11 1997:

Prog-rock holiday tunes?  At sail at Mejer?
I'll reserve comment...


#49 of 98 by lumen on Tue Dec 2 07:27:15 1997:

No..I'm interested.  I can't imagine progressive acts doing holiday stuff,
especially some alternative acts.  Synth bands?  Hmmm...maybe Erasure or Pet
Shop Boys, but DM..?  ehehehhehe.

btw, what *is* defined as progressive today?


#50 of 98 by mcnally on Tue Dec 2 07:36:39 1997:

  Any band that started in the 70's that's still recording today?  :-)
  No, not really, but I kindof agree that I don't know what "progressive"
  means for new bands, it's not a genre that I tend to think of as one
  that new artists enter.


#51 of 98 by krj on Tue Dec 2 15:19:50 1997:

I have a CD by a Seattle band called The Puddle Jumpers which desperately 
wants to be 70's progressive.  (A 1996 release.)


#52 of 98 by mziemba on Tue Dec 2 16:18:28 1997:

Oh, I think they're defunct now, but there was an interesting band called
Echolyn that was doing the prog rock thing in the 90s...


#53 of 98 by mziemba on Tue Dec 2 16:26:06 1997:

I typically use this yardstick for progressive rock...
 
Any bands that attempt ambitious arrangement with high symbolic content and
attention to fidelity with a core guitar/synth/bass/drum setup usually
qualify.


#54 of 98 by orinoco on Wed Dec 3 00:26:21 1997:

I guess I'd say a progressive band is one that wants to do more with a rock
lineup than make rock songs (and money).


#55 of 98 by mcnally on Wed Dec 3 04:47:39 1997:

  wow!  an even broader definition than mine..


#56 of 98 by orinoco on Thu Dec 4 02:37:30 1997:

Thinking about it, though, it doesn't really work.  I mean, there's also a
certain _sound_ that you associate with Prog Rock - very epic, very
synth-and-guitar.  So there are some bands doing very creative things in a
rock framework that don't really have that sound, and I don't know if I'd call
them Prog or not.


#57 of 98 by diznave on Wed Dec 10 04:54:38 1997:

I pulled a rather large fuzzy ball of fugazi out of my bellybutton this
morning. Imagine my surprise!!


#58 of 98 by goose on Wed Dec 10 17:13:14 1997:

How does Ian like your bellybutton?


#59 of 98 by teflon on Mon Dec 15 19:35:03 1997:

(sigh)


#60 of 98 by mziemba on Mon Dec 22 08:10:09 1997:

Looks like Yes has a new album out.  Haven't really heard much of their stuff
after _Union_.  As much as I like Jon Anderson's distinctive voice, I've found
his solo albums somewhat disappointing.  In fact, they've gotten downright
weird.  So, I'm glad to see he's back at it with the gang (or at least Steve
Howe and a few others).


#61 of 98 by mziemba on Mon Dec 22 08:13:56 1997:

Apparently, there's now a _Tubular Bells III_ in the works from Mike Oldfield.
This has never really been my favorite vein of Oldfield, although I saw him
perform _Tubular Bells 2_ live.


#62 of 98 by orinoco on Mon Dec 22 17:34:31 1997:

I'd thought that was more new-agey stuff...


#63 of 98 by mziemba on Mon Dec 22 18:35:59 1997:

Oldfield is often placed in new age sections because of his heavy use of
synthesizers.  But he really sits more squarely in the progressive rock
field, as he plays guitar, himself, and many of his pieces are longer and
more intricate.



#64 of 98 by teflon on Mon Dec 22 22:55:01 1997:

(ah, if i only had the money...)


#65 of 98 by orinoco on Tue Dec 23 04:27:32 1997:

I'll have to take a look at that...


#66 of 98 by lumen on Fri Dec 26 01:59:22 1997:

what tef said..


#67 of 98 by mziemba on Fri Dec 26 06:28:52 1997:

I've got some classic prog rock that you'll have to check out, sometime.  Good
stuff.


#68 of 98 by lumen on Sat Dec 27 03:28:54 1997:

Ya talkin' to me?  I'm still too poor to buy much music for myself, lately..
A sample tape sometime would be nice..


#69 of 98 by mziemba on Wed Feb 18 20:12:22 1998:

As we drift closer and closer to another gulf war, I find myself listening
to Roger Waters' _Amused to Death_ (1992) more and more.


#70 of 98 by teflon on Thu Feb 19 02:20:23 1998:

Yeah?  How's that?  Also, I found a really great website for any who happen
to be interested in Prog Rock.  I don't have the address on me right now, but
I'll post it shortly...


#71 of 98 by teflon on Fri Feb 20 03:32:43 1998:

The address is as follows: http://prog.ari.net/prog/GEPR/gepr.html
It is the "Gibralter Encyclopedia of Progressive Rock," and it has reveiws
of bands w/some history, subcatagory listings & definitions, etc...


#72 of 98 by tpryan on Sat Feb 21 22:04:54 1998:

re 69:  That also reminds me of Susan Urban's Gulf War song:
"Only 100 died".


#73 of 98 by orinoco on Sun Feb 22 03:00:59 1998:

Interesting.  Have to check that one out sometime.


#74 of 98 by mziemba on Wed Jun 24 00:23:07 1998:

I'm thinking that Tori Amos is basically "progressive rock", when you get down
to it.  Discuss...


#75 of 98 by anderyn on Wed Jun 24 02:00:19 1998:

Why do you say that? I'm curious, now!


#76 of 98 by orinoco on Wed Jun 24 15:08:59 1998:

Hmm...
I guess it depends on what you mean by 'progressive rock'. By the definition
I seem to remember posting a while back, something about 'trying to do
something artistic and original with rock music', I guess some of her music
would qualify. 
But now I'm rethinking that definition. I mean, does that make the White
Album, or even Pet Sounds, examples of prog rock? Jimi Hendrix? Miles Davis?
Elvis? 
"Hmm" indeed....


#77 of 98 by mziemba on Fri Jul 3 12:24:42 1998:

"Generally, 'progressive' denotes a form of rock music in which electric
instruments and rock-band formats are integrated with European classical
motifs and orchestrations, typically forming extended, intricate,
multisectional suites....accenting a daunting instrumental virtuosity and
grandiosity over directness....sometimes also known as 'art rock'."  
                     -- _The Rolling Stone Ency. of Rock and Roll_ (1983)
                        ed. John Pareles and Patricia Romanowski


#78 of 98 by cloud on Sun Dec 27 04:13:01 1998:

Hey folks, I just got ahold of a new album by a group called _Gentle Giant_,
who, as I understand it, were in many ways the quintesence of 70's Prog.  The
album of which I am now a proud possessor is "Octopus" perhaps named so
because it contains but eight tracks?  I've only had the chance to listen to
it once, so I haven't fully formulated my oppion on them yet.  I bought it
on the recomendations of the good folks at the GEPR, which I mentioned
earlier.  What I can tell you of them; they use extreemly complex harmonies,
many of which sound impossible to do out of a studio (although, as I
understand it, they did do it live), a variaty if instuments, including a
Moog, what ever that is, and any number of Midiaeval instruments.  In fact,
that seems to be their main bent; towards fusing Rock and Midiaeval music.
Some of their songs are positively odd, like their first song, "The Advent
of Panurge"--can anybody tell me what they are reffering to?.  They remind
me, as most good prog I've heard does, of most other 70's prog bands I've
heard, most notably Early King Crimson and Genesis.
        Speaking of Genesis, I'm ashamed to note that I failed to mention that
I've got two of their early albums also; _Selling England By the Pound_, and
_The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway_, both released in the early seventies.  They
really only became mainstream after Peter Gabriel left them and Phil Collins
took the lead.  That stuff isn't bad, but the earlier albums are terrific,
and yes folks, _very_ progressive (would that mean that the turn towards
commersiallism makes them Regressive?).  _Lamb Lies Down on Broadway_ is a
fine example of their earlier work; it is a double album, with a full story
upon which the music is based in the liner notes.  In short, a concept album,
which is very prog indeed.



Y'know, one of my friends, while getting a ride (and thus a dose of my music)
in my car asked me if I listened to any normal music at all.  It was a
strange, yet proud feeling to realize that the answer to his question was
"no."


#79 of 98 by cyklone on Sun Dec 27 05:39:16 1998:

Gentle Giant! I used to listen to them many years ago. Try to get a copy
of "Free Hand." They do weird vocal tricks like trying to sing falsetto as
low as possible. BTW, the Moog was one of the first commercially available
synthesizers used by rock keyboardists.



#80 of 98 by cloud on Sun Dec 27 17:06:51 1998:

Thanks.  I'll look for that.  I've also been looking for a copy of "In a Glass
House," which is apparently out of print.  I know one place where I can get
a used vinal for $25, but I think I'll just wait for Polygram's re-release
in 1999 (not to far away now).

Somebody asked a while back about new prog. bands.  I actually know of one,
a group called "Porcupine Tree,"  which is mostly led be Steve Wilson, an
English chap.  I've got two of their albums, and they are very good.  What
do they sound like?  Well, I've heard critic-like folks call them the new
torch-holders for Pink Floyd, but I think that might be a little mis-leading,
as their albums are mostly instrumental, with the occational vocal.  They are
heavelly electronic, and are the kind of thing you might expect to hear on
"Hearts in Space," if it weren't for the fact that they have a very rock edge.



#81 of 98 by lumen on Mon Dec 28 14:18:20 1998:

Oooh.  A likely candidate for the "Hearts in Space" show?  Sounds like I
should check 'em out.


#82 of 98 by cloud on Tue Dec 29 01:12:45 1998:

You'll probably have to special order or something of that nature if you want
it... They're (yet another) obscure English band.


#83 of 98 by orinoco on Tue Dec 29 05:18:46 1998:

Re 'panurge': (or, the Greek Geek sounds off)
Okay, I know some early Christian 'heretics' said the world had been created,
not by God, but by a false creator named 'demiurge'. The 'urge' in that name
comes from the Greek 'ourgos', which I seem to remember means 'creator'.
("Demiourgos" is Grek means 'craftsman', I know that much for sure)
So, I'm guessing that 'panurge' means 'creator-of=-everything'.

And meanwhile, it sounds like I need to hear these guys. 


#84 of 98 by cloud on Tue Dec 29 16:42:13 1998:

Yah, I'll make you a tape or something.  Could you come up with anything for
"Pantagruel"?  He's the other charector in that song.  As I understand it,
they are both giants... probably refering back to the bands name?


#85 of 98 by mcnally on Wed Dec 30 07:30:20 1998:

  cf.  "Gargantua and Pantagruel" (Rabelais)


#86 of 98 by krj on Thu Dec 31 01:10:00 1998:

Gentle Giant's FREE HAND was a favorite LP of mine back when I had 
some inclinations towards "progressive rock," 25 years ago or so.
Hmm, I wonder where that LP is.


#87 of 98 by orinoco on Thu Dec 31 04:32:21 1998:

The Readers' Encyclopedia sez:

Pantagruel: ...The name, meaning "all-thirsty," had originally been given to
a little sea devil in the 15th-century mystery plays who threw salt into the
mouths of drunks to stimulate their thirst...

Panurge (Gr. "all-doer"). In Rabelais' _Gargantua and Pantagruel_, the
high-spirited rogue who becomes Pantagruel's companion.



#88 of 98 by cloud on Thu Dec 31 17:08:15 1998:

Yup that's definately what they are refering to, Dan, thank you.


#89 of 98 by orinoco on Sat Jan 2 04:32:03 1999:

That's some literate lyrics you've got there, boy :) I'l definitely need to
give 'em a listen sometime.


#90 of 98 by cloud on Tue Jan 5 16:11:19 1999:

Well, my good chap, I'll be able to get you a tape of the album soon.  As for
the lyrics, I suggest that you look 'em up at www.blazemonger.com/GG/, the
official web site.  The lyrics of "Knots" are particularly interesting.


#91 of 98 by mziemba on Sat Jan 9 13:41:00 1999:

You guys are really breaking a sweat over here on this conference!  Bravo!
 
Who was in Gentle Giant, btw?  I would assume some of those folks moved on
to other things.

Thanks for all the definitions, Dan!


#92 of 98 by krj on Sat Jan 9 18:45:51 1999:

Derek (mumble mumble) from Gentle Giant moved on to become a record 
industry executive.  Can't remember the guy's last name.  


#93 of 98 by cloud on Sun Jan 10 04:06:45 1999:

Shulman.  His brother, Ray was also in the band, and another brother Phil,
was for a while before a big break-up.  Before that they were members of a
pop/r&b band called "Simon Dupree and the Big Sound".  

Other band members of note;  Gary Green, guitrars (any instrumentals I list
are only one of many... These guys were multi-talented), Kerry Minear, a
classically trained composer; did keyboards and vocals (he split the vocals
with Derick), and John Weathers, drums.  This was the classic lineup,
(Shulman, Shulman, Green, Minear, and Weathers) and the best, 'though they
did have a couple other drummers before Weathers.

In other prog-related news, Fish is planning a tour in the USA this summer,
durring August and September.  I fully inteand to go to at least one show.
His newest album, _Raingods With Zippos_ will be realeased in the the USA on
april 20.  Both Fish and GG have excelent websites (The official GG one is
maintained by a big fan) and I highly recomend them.  They are packed with
all sorts of interesting information.


#94 of 98 by cloud on Mon May 31 22:56:06 1999:

update:
Fish comes to Pontiac, MI, on July 28, and his newest album is well worth
listening to, if only for "Plague of Ghosts", a six-part suite which takes
up the whole second half of the album.

I also just got done reading a book on prog. rock, called "Rocking the
Classics, English Progressive Rock and the Counterculture",  by Edward Macan.
It's the most comprehensive history, definition, etc, of the subject I've come
accross. The section in which he systematically dismantles most of the major
critics complaints about the genre is particularly interesting.

Question, besides Ozrics Tenticals, which was mentioned some time back, does
anybody know of any contemporary prog. bands.  I know of a few: Spock's Beard,
Djam Karat, Hermetic Science, and Edhals, from France.  Of these, bands, I've
only heard anything by Hermetic Science, which is interesting because it
features a mallet artist.


#95 of 98 by orinoco on Thu Jun 3 22:18:28 1999:

WHAT?!  You got Raingods w/Zippos and didn't tell me?!

I'm shocked.  Shocked and appalled. <grin>  You'll need to play it for me
sometime.


#96 of 98 by cloud on Fri Jun 4 01:04:12 1999:

Sorry, Dan.  Further update:  Fish's North America has been canceled, or at
least postponed.  


#97 of 98 by orinoco on Sun Jun 6 22:34:58 1999:

What?!

(Hey Josh, you think our roadtrip fund could get us to Scotland?... :)


#98 of 98 by krj on Fri Jun 18 22:34:46 1999:

I went looking for reviews of the Edward Macan book (resp:94) on the 
web and it looks interesting.  I'll have to go see if I can browse
a copy at Borders to see if I want to pursue it further.


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: