1966-67 Orchestral backing

Sean Trane wrote: I am a bit opposed to syematic use of orchestral backing as it can ruins the songs by making them pompous and heavy but not inthe heavy rock sense.   in the 60's: the prevalent feeling that most singers had to be backed with classical strings was still too present and actually hindered the progress of rock. I believe of one rock's biggest victory was over the orchestra, once the rock players managed to write credible songs (with arrangemlents to go along with it)  and be good enough musically to actually play brilliantly (in terms of virtuosity also) to simply be able to tell the record industry to f--k off with their professional session musos and house orchestras   I'd love to hear one day Love's Forever Change without strings. They are simply hindering the pureness of the songs, I believe.       in the 70's: One of my main gripes with Jethro Tull (one of my fave group, BTW) is that during Palmer's stay in the band, the strings arrangements were almost systematic and ruined many of the songs (look at the poor Stormwatch) even influencing the writing of the songs. In that case, one must look at Gary Brooker's songwriting in Procol Harum >>much more credible, because he actually uses the orchestra as an instrument, which is why the Live At Edmonton was so succesful.

Thought I'd resurrect one of the more interesting threads in recent times and try to bring in the possibility of the mellotron phasing out the use of orchestra in rock into the equation...

I agree with Hugues in a sense that the rock band had a great victory over the orchestra. I quite liked the way the orchestration was done on 'Forever Changes' but on 'Days Of Future Passed', for example, I can't abide the cheesiness of it all (at least to my young ears, at any rate ). It's as if the rock bands were then able to create orchestral sounds/scope within themselves and of their own devices rather than using an orchestra- perhaps that's why I find 'In Search Of The Lost Chord' to be a better album and perhaps the more interesting one now in that it cut all ties with conservative record executives insisting on orchestration for albums (wasn't DOFP initially a record company idea to have a band and orchestra playing Dvorak's 'New World Symphony' to demonstrate stereo, or some such) as the band showed clearly they could do it themselves. As ever, I'm simply not going to label it the first prog album though, as there's still a lot of psychedelia in the mix (but psych in a sense could be argued to have given way to prog...). I find all the Moody Blues albums quite dated now due to the mystical poetry and 'groovy man' philosophy but this is a hindsight attitude on my part. I don't doubt they were genuinely innovative then and I still enjoy hearing the albums.

An interesting article in a recent Classic Rock on The Moody Blues had a section about the mellotron. According to Mike Pinder it was initially marketed as a sort of alternative/replacement to the Hammond organ rather than an instrument with its own unique qualities. Perhaps in that sense, The Moody Blues could be praised for exploring the wider possibility of the mellotron's sound. There were people who used it before, such as Graham Bond, but I don't think it was used in the same way or in such quantity as The Moody Blues had done.

Apparently Keith Emerson, however, was against the mellotron on principle because he felt it devalued the orchestra and rendered them unnecessary. Indeed, there was a general consensus on a thread a long time ago Emerson had only ever used it on one Nice track 'The Diamond Hard Blue Apples Of The Moon'.

There was that BBC radio programme about the mellotron too- apparently one band (Simon Dupree and The Big Sound? The Moody Blues? I can't remember) were showing off the mellotron and some of the studio were appalled by its similarity to the orchestra, creating a furore. This again harks back to Sean Trane's comment about the conservatism of some over the orchestra's superiority to the rock band. That's something I love so dearly about the music towards the end of the 60s and into the 70s was that all of a sudden people didn't seem to look down on rock music any more. Though I don't doubt that some bands had got totally unwieldly in the mid 70s (ELP and Wakeman's stage shows especially) and the impact punk had, the way rock suddenly reverted to a 'back to basics' format doesn't personally appeal to me all that much.

And I think it was Harper's Bizarre who had a hit with a cover of 'Feelin' Groovy' I think, Dick, but The Association may well have done it too. And Robert Kirby only did the first two Nick Drake albums, 'Five Leaves Left' and 'Bryter Layter', whereas Nick Drake's last album 'Pink Moon' was totally solo with just guitar, vocal and occasional piano.

I am a bit opposed to syematic use of orchestral backing as it can ruins the songs by making them pompous and heavy but not inthe heavy rock sense.

salmacis wrote: Paul Simon's debut was 'The Paul Simon Songbook'. I had that one at some point- didn't remember the orchestra being on it. Wasn't it 1965? Some of the songs on this, and the 'Wednesday Morning 3AM' S & G album were rejigged into folk rock form with electric guitars, of course.

Paul Simon's debut was 'The Paul Simon Songbook'. I had that one at some point- didn't remember the orchestra being on it. Wasn't it 1965? Some of the songs on this, and the 'Wednesday Morning 3AM' S & G album were rejigged into folk rock form with electric guitars, of course.

I have to say 'Bedsitter Images' is very definitely a bit of a hodge podge in terms of arrangements. I think a lot of critics have agreed that the string arrangements seem to be a bit over-elaborate for the folk songs Stewart had done. Exactly the same thing seemed to happen on Genesis' debut, with Arthur Greenslade's string arrangements being rather intrusive.

I haven't played it in a while, but I must say I never particularly went a bundle on 'Days Of Future Passed' anyway. As I recall, it was rather like Deep Purple's 'Concerto...' in that there was no real fusion between the two- the orchestra did a bit, then the band etc. Barclay James Harvest were a bit better in that respect, I guess, even though it was a fair few years later. The Enid were maybe the most successful and consistent fusion of rock band and orchestra though, imo.

Perhaps one could say Buddy Holly's early experiments preceded such stuff anyway. His hits like 'It Doesn't Matter Anymore' and 'True Love Ways' had pop songs accompanied by an orchestra.

Just found Al Stewart's To Whom It May Concern 1966-1970, cheap in Virgin, a compilation of his CBS and earlier recordings. I am reminded in 1967 CBS gave Stewart's first LP recording the full works, by the inclusion of an orchestra. This was not the first off of its type: David McWilliams' self titled album for Major Minor Records recorded in 1966 (i.e. the one with the remorable Days Of Pearly Spencer on it), had the Raymond Lefevber Orchestra as backing (the RLO had already a hit single and LP  of lushed up pop tunes). When did Paul Simon do his first solo album - with orchestral arrangements?