Camel - 2nd Division or Premier League?

andu wrote: To my perception, YES were the quintessential Premier League classic prog band: the crown seen on the Live at QPR DVD (1975) is the biggest one I've ever seen gathered for a prog act (I think there were at least 50000 people). Anyone who can compare to that is Premier League.

micky wrote: Tales wrote: andu wrote: To my perception, YES were the quintessential Premier League classic prog band: the crown seen on the Live at QPR DVD (1975) is the biggest one I've ever seen gathered for a prog act (I think there were at least 50000 people). Anyone who can compare to that is Premier League.   Only ELP & Pink Floyd could compete with that. In essence, the premier league only consisted of three bands. 1.YES 2.ELP 3.PINK FLOYD the elite of the elite... throw in King Crimson and Tull... you have it. The Premier League of prog. The big 5...everyone else.. is in a lesser division.

ProgBagel wrote: They are right in there....better then some of the giants in my opinion. Amazing band.

out of curiouslity ....and I'd love to know... just how do you see them better.  At what?

It's not really fair to compare Camel to Yes and Genesis.  Not because the latter two are better, but because Camel plays a distinctly different kind of music.  Camel doesn't use grandiose arrangements or noodling solos, nor do they dress up as flowers or wear capes.  They have a very subtle style which connects ethereally to the listener.  Their genius and complexity is somewhat cloaked by the fact that their music progresses so naturally, in contrast to songs like Supper's Ready and Karn Evil 9, which are quite frankly a bunch of songs strung together.  I understand that Camel have never composed a song that long, but this is part of my point.  They knew the limitations of the music, and how and when it should progress and when it should end. 
The only real problem I've heard people have about Camel's music is the vocals.  Luckily, not only do Camel's live albums sound a heck of a lot better lyrically, but by their later albums Latimer's voice has matured greatly. 
Moving on, there are several reasons why Camel definitely deserves to be in the Premier League. 
First of all, they had a dedication to the progressive spirit.  Yes, Genesis, and Jethro Tull legitimately started getting worse in the 80s.  ELP had toileted themselves with Works Vol. 1, and even bands like Gentle Giant and Van der Graaf Generator decreased the quality of their output and disbanded.  Camel, however, did no such thing.  Right now you may be screaming look at The Single Factor!  Look at I Can See Your House From Here!  Have you heard Remote Romance???  But on all those albums, Camel managed to stick on at least one progressive track despite huge pressures from the record companies.  Songs like Ice, Echoes, and Sasquatch are just as good as their main 70s output.  They even managed to record a fairly good album, Stationary Traveler, in the heart of that hellhole we call the 80s, and Nude, which is an incredible album. 
After they disbanded in the Mid 80s, due largely to legal problems, Latimer began composing a new progressive album and decided to set up their own record company for complete creative freedom.  The results?  Dust and Dreams, Harbor of Tears, Rajaz, and A Nod and a Wink. 
That being said, a lot of people shoot down Camel as not being innovative.  Sure, they may not have used new time signatures or instruments, but they possess a certain quality not present elsewhere.  Maybe its the emotion Latimer pours out with every note on his guitar, maybe its Barden's nonchalant keyboard melodies, or how seamlessly they arrange their music.  These may not be innovative in an objective, tangible sense but I have not found any other band that does these things better than Camel. 
If that doesn't convince you, look no farther than The Snow Goose.  I challenge you to find an all instrumental concept album based on a children's book, heck, any album that is anything like it and of anywhere near the same caliber.  Even if you can do that, show me that it had an outstanding presence on the charts.  There is simply no other record like it. 
This is a band that you can love at first listen, and love even more after each time you hit play.  Camel is infectious, and I strongly believe anyone who doesn't love them is trying not to like 'em.  They exude a natural vibe that is just so..... incredible.  There is nothing that comes close to the sensual experience of listening to a Camel record. 

There is no doubt in my mind that Camel is a premier band on the same level as Genesis, Yes, ELP, King Crimson, Jethro Tull, or any other band.  You can't call them the best symphonic band, because they're not quite symphonic prog.  Nor are they Canterbury, or even space rock.  There is just something inexplicable about the molding together of these genres with the personality and musicianship of the band that gives us something very special. 

[/rant]

micky wrote: raindance2007 wrote: Cheesecakemouse wrote: 2nd or 3rd league, pretty non offensive non challenging music that rode the tide of prog than rather define it, I always have a problem with Camel being so over rated when great groups like Henry Cow and Faust get barely a mention. As far as I'm concerned the Snowgoose sounds more like a covers album than anything original, while Moonmadness just rode the tide. Come on people! there are far more important and innovative bands out there, hasn't it occured to you why Camel being accessible (unlike Henry Cow Faust etc) never made it big? They were a second to third tier prog band for a reason  they never dared challenge the genre like RIO, Yes (remeber Tales and Relayer) or King Crimson, Camel just played it safe.   I'd take Moonmadness anyday over Relayer. The only Crimson album that matches Moonmadness would be Posiedon imo. None of the Wetton albums are as good you are talking apples to his oranges....  love the albums if you want...  but Cheesy is dead on.  There are those who broke ground and defined prog.. and those that rode the coattails

I'm glad someone sees sense in this as well.

Some real snobbery on show here, IMHO. I'm utterly baffled as to why Camel are being compared unfavourably to Henry Cow and Faust; there's nothing in common between them, and those bands are a very acquired taste. Surely even their most devout fans must admit that (I do quite like Faust, though). There's an unfortunate trait amongst some that the most difficult music is somehow 'better' and 'more important', which is patronising, IMHO. I'm not saying it's inferior, either; it's apples and oranges, making the comparisons rather fatuous, frankly. It is possible to like, say, Can, Amon Duul II, King Crimson, Soft Machine and Faust as much as Camel, Barclay James Harvest and neo-prog.

Edited by salmacis - September 29 2007 at 17:10

micky wrote: raindance2007 wrote: Cheesecakemouse wrote: 2nd or 3rd league, pretty non offensive non challenging music that rode the tide of prog than rather define it, I always have a problem with Camel being so over rated when great groups like Henry Cow and Faust get barely a mention. As far as I'm concerned the Snowgoose sounds more like a covers album than anything original, while Moonmadness just rode the tide. Come on people! there are far more important and innovative bands out there, hasn't it occured to you why Camel being accessible (unlike Henry Cow Faust etc) never made it big? They were a second to third tier prog band for a reason  they never dared challenge the genre like RIO, Yes (remeber Tales and Relayer) or King Crimson, Camel just played it safe.   I'd take Moonmadness anyday over Relayer. The only Crimson album that matches Moonmadness would be Posiedon imo. None of the Wetton albums are as good you are talking apples to his oranges....  love the albums if you want...  but Cheesy is dead on.  There are those who broke ground and defined prog.. and those that rode the coattails

Edited by raindance2007 - September 29 2007 at 18:03

micky wrote: raindance2007 wrote: micky wrote: raindance2007 wrote: Cheesecakemouse wrote: 2nd or 3rd league, pretty non offensive non challenging music that rode the tide of prog than rather define it, I always have a problem with Camel being so over rated when great groups like Henry Cow and Faust get barely a mention. As far as I'm concerned the Snowgoose sounds more like a covers album than anything original, while Moonmadness just rode the tide. Come on people! there are far more important and innovative bands out there, hasn't it occured to you why Camel being accessible (unlike Henry Cow Faust etc) never made it big? They were a second to third tier prog band for a reason  they never dared challenge the genre like RIO, Yes (remeber Tales and Relayer) or King Crimson, Camel just played it safe.   I'd take Moonmadness anyday over Relayer. The only Crimson album that matches Moonmadness would be Posiedon imo. None of the Wetton albums are as good you are talking apples to his oranges....  love the albums if you want...  but Cheesy is dead on.  There are those who broke ground and defined prog.. and those that rode the coattails   Just because Yes and Genesis started before Camel doesn't mean they are better. I never said the earlier the better, Univers Zero formed after Camel and they were  broke more ground Camels songs are are all their own ideas and their first 8 year period is probably better than the first 8 years of Yes. I don't believe in boundaries being broken if they don't sound that great. Someone could fart on a recording and it would be considered breaking boundaries. There's large parts of Relayer that sound like the band is running out of ideas. I only really rate the first 5 minutesof gates highly, but the remainder of that song is just filler imo. I don't believe prog is about breaking boundaries, it's just about mixing rock with jazz or classical and being clever about it. That style of music did break boundaries in the late 60s though. The whole purpose of progressive rock is to break ground and make your own idiosyncratic sound thats where the term "PROGRESSIVE" came from. hell brother... I don't argue musical taste.. if you think Camel was a better group than Yes.. more power to you.   But you missed my point competely....  better or best has nothing to do with it...  Magma ... M.O.  ... Zappa...could be argued to be better bands.  The point is those bands who are generally recognized to be the heavies of prog.. instant name recognition.. those who defined the genre.. and if you think Camel did... then you live on another plane of existence from the rest of us.. and my cellphone doesn't have that good of coverage.

Again I agree with you Micky, I would also add that  If a band doesn't break ground that means they're not very original; my rationale is that a good a band is defined if they have their own voice, an original voice is created by breaking ground, therefore  if a band doesn't break ground they're not original; that is the big problem facing rock today and why many don't consider it any good, whats the point writing your own songs if they're not going to break ground and therefore be original. This is also precisely the problem with Cmael they are not original, so why rate them so highly if you consider them as good as Genesis, then you must equate tribute bands on the same level, since they're pretty much doing what Camel does; copy the better bands.


Edited by Cheesecakemouse - September 29 2007 at 20:00

Cheesecakemouse wrote: micky wrote: raindance2007 wrote: micky wrote: raindance2007 wrote: Cheesecakemouse wrote: 2nd or 3rd league, pretty non offensive non challenging music that rode the tide of prog than rather define it, I always have a problem with Camel being so over rated when great groups like Henry Cow and Faust get barely a mention. As far as I'm concerned the Snowgoose sounds more like a covers album than anything original, while Moonmadness just rode the tide. Come on people! there are far more important and innovative bands out there, hasn't it occured to you why Camel being accessible (unlike Henry Cow Faust etc) never made it big? They were a second to third tier prog band for a reason  they never dared challenge the genre like RIO, Yes (remeber Tales and Relayer) or King Crimson, Camel just played it safe.   I'd take Moonmadness anyday over Relayer. The only Crimson album that matches Moonmadness would be Posiedon imo. None of the Wetton albums are as good you are talking apples to his oranges....  love the albums if you want...  but Cheesy is dead on.  There are those who broke ground and defined prog.. and those that rode the coattails   Just because Yes and Genesis started before Camel doesn't mean they are better. I never said the earlier the better, Univers Zero formed after Camel and they were  broke more ground Camels songs are are all their own ideas and their first 8 year period is probably better than the first 8 years of Yes. I don't believe in boundaries being broken if they don't sound that great. Someone could fart on a recording and it would be considered breaking boundaries. There's large parts of Relayer that sound like the band is running out of ideas. I only really rate the first 5 minutesof gates highly, but the remainder of that song is just filler imo. I don't believe prog is about breaking boundaries, it's just about mixing rock with jazz or classical and being clever about it. That style of music did break boundaries in the late 60s though. The whole purpose of progressive rock is to break ground and make your own idiosyncratic sound thats where the term "PROGRESSIVE" came from. hell brother... I don't argue musical taste.. if you think Camel was a better group than Yes.. more power to you.   But you missed my point competely....  better or best has nothing to do with it...  Magma ... M.O.  ... Zappa...could be argued to be better bands.  The point is those bands who are generally recognized to be the heavies of prog.. instant name recognition.. those who defined the genre.. and if you think Camel did... then you live on another plane of existence from the rest of us.. and my cellphone doesn't have that good of coverage. Again I agree with you Micky, I would also add that  If a band doesn't break ground that means they're not very original; my rationale is that a good a band is defined if they have their own voice, an original voice is created by breaking ground, therefore  if a band doesn't break ground they're not original; that is the big problem facing rock today and why many don't consider it any good, whats the point writing your own songs if they're not going to break ground and therefore be original. This is also precisely the problem with Cmael they are not original, so why rate them so highly if you consider them as good as Genesis, then you must equate tribute bands on the same level, since they're pretty much doing what Camel does; copy the better bands.

As for your argument  about the most popular band isn't necessary the best ;Raindance2007, thats the problem with Camel, they have too much attention and popularity for a second, or third rate band. Get some real prog, check out Mike Oldfield and Caravan as well as Curved Air, and non prog - The Who, Camel ripped off all thoise bands - thats why I think the Snowgoose is a covers album, I'm sure it should be placed under tributes or compilations.

Cheesecakemouse wrote: Cheesecakemouse wrote: micky wrote: raindance2007 wrote: micky wrote: raindance2007 wrote: Cheesecakemouse wrote: 2nd or 3rd league, pretty non offensive non challenging music that rode the tide of prog than rather define it, I always have a problem with Camel being so over rated when great groups like Henry Cow and Faust get barely a mention. As far as I'm concerned the Snowgoose sounds more like a covers album than anything original, while Moonmadness just rode the tide. Come on people! there are far more important and innovative bands out there, hasn't it occured to you why Camel being accessible (unlike Henry Cow Faust etc) never made it big? They were a second to third tier prog band for a reason  they never dared challenge the genre like RIO, Yes (remeber Tales and Relayer) or King Crimson, Camel just played it safe.   I'd take Moonmadness anyday over Relayer. The only Crimson album that matches Moonmadness would be Posiedon imo. None of the Wetton albums are as good you are talking apples to his oranges....  love the albums if you want...  but Cheesy is dead on.  There are those who broke ground and defined prog.. and those that rode the coattails   Just because Yes and Genesis started before Camel doesn't mean they are better. I never said the earlier the better, Univers Zero formed after Camel and they were  broke more ground Camels songs are are all their own ideas and their first 8 year period is probably better than the first 8 years of Yes. I don't believe in boundaries being broken if they don't sound that great. Someone could fart on a recording and it would be considered breaking boundaries. There's large parts of Relayer that sound like the band is running out of ideas. I only really rate the first 5 minutesof gates highly, but the remainder of that song is just filler imo. I don't believe prog is about breaking boundaries, it's just about mixing rock with jazz or classical and being clever about it. That style of music did break boundaries in the late 60s though. The whole purpose of progressive rock is to break ground and make your own idiosyncratic sound thats where the term "PROGRESSIVE" came from. hell brother... I don't argue musical taste.. if you think Camel was a better group than Yes.. more power to you.   But you missed my point competely....  better or best has nothing to do with it...  Magma ... M.O.  ... Zappa...could be argued to be better bands.  The point is those bands who are generally recognized to be the heavies of prog.. instant name recognition.. those who defined the genre.. and if you think Camel did... then you live on another plane of existence from the rest of us.. and my cellphone doesn't have that good of coverage. Again I agree with you Micky, I would also add that  If a band doesn't break ground that means they're not very original; my rationale is that a good a band is defined if they have their own voice, an original voice is created by breaking ground, therefore  if a band doesn't break ground they're not original; that is the big problem facing rock today and why many don't consider it any good, whats the point writing your own songs if they're not going to break ground and therefore be original. This is also precisely the problem with Cmael they are not original, so why rate them so highly if you consider them as good as Genesis, then you must equate tribute bands on the same level, since they're pretty much doing what Camel does; copy the better bands. As for your argument  about the most popular band isn't necessary the best ;Raindance2007, thats the problem with Camel, they have too much attention and popularity for a second, or third rate band. Get some real prog, check out Mike Oldfield and Caravan as well as Curved Air, and non prog - The Who, Camel ripped off all thoise bands - thats why I think the Snowgoose is a covers album, I'm sure it should be placed under tributes or compilations.