PA's Battle to Stardom B5: Rush v. Kayo Dot

I have to go with Rush on this one.

2) I'm just saying that some new avant rock bands try to contribute in several forms to expand today's music styles. This contribution can be as just as simple as mixing previous styles with new tendencies and concepts, to create a different sound. To these ears, just like KD tries.

how is that ANY different than the "retro" bands that often get bashed for exactly that?? So KD mixes old and new - how is that innovative?


Edited by King By-Tor - October 30 2008 at 23:08

I know, but what you're saying is that the new bands like KD are mixing old with new. So maybe they do it better in some people's opinion's than the "retro" bands, but how does that make them INNOVATIVE?

King By-Tor wrote: I know, but what you're saying is that the new bands like KD are mixing old with new. So maybe they do it better in some people's opinion's than the "retro" bands, but how does that make them INNOVATIVE?

If you have to ask, you'll never know.

How is mixing someting old with something new not innovative? Another thing is the fact that Toby Driver/Kayo Dot is inspired by music that was more innovative than the retroprogbands in general are, to begin with.

Mixing influences from several 19th-20th century composers, 73-74 era King Crimson, freejazz, black metal, electronic music etc.. is certainly more innovative that sounding like a mix between Yes and Genesis etc, and not really adding something that can be considered "new".

King By-Tor, you seem to be working very hard at not liking KD. This part of Rocktopus's post; "Mixing influences from several 19th-20th century composers, 73-74 era King Crimson, freejazz, black metal, electronic music etc.. is certainly more innovative that sounding like a mix between Yes and Genesis etc, and not really adding something that can be considered "new".", goes a long way to answer your original question, and you've conviniently ignored it. I believe Alex's original point about not comparing modern Avant Garde bands with the classics is more to do witht he fact that rock music was only beginning to reach the hight of its development, leaving masses of room for inovation. That room is largely gone gone now so modern bands have to play around with the restricted space thats left.

Your TFK comparison falls completely flat for one reason, they and every other retro band is out to do one thing, keep the style of Yes, Genesis and oters alive, using modern recording techniques and instruments is hardly inovative as there is nothing new to the music.

As for the Psychowhatsit method of composing that Alex mentioned, that sounds more like the method maudlin of the Welll used, I think KD's is a bit more "normal" than that.

Oh, and I'd like to know who you've heard doing the same as KD.
 

Edited by sleeper - October 31 2008 at 11:39

King By-Tor wrote: sleeper wrote: King By-Tor, you seem to be working very hard at not liking KD. This part of Rocktopus's post; "Mixing influences from several 19th-20th century composers, 73-74 era King Crimson, freejazz, black metal, electronic music etc.. is certainly more innovative that sounding like a mix between Yes and Genesis etc, and not really adding something that can be considered "new".", goes a long way to answer your original question, and you've conviniently ignored it. I believe Alex's original point about not comparing modern Avant Garde bands with the classics is more to do witht he fact that rock music was only beginning to reach the hight of its development, leaving masses of room for inovation. That room is largely gone gone now so modern bands have to play around with the restricted space thats left. Your TFK comparison falls completely flat for one reason, they and every other retro band is out to do one thing, keep the style of Yes, Genesis and oters alive, using modern recording techniques and instruments is hardly inovative as there is nothing new to the music. As for the Psychowhatsit method of composing that Alex mentioned, that sounds more like the method maudlin of the Welll used, I think KD's is a bit more "normal" than that.   Well you're right in that I don't like them at all and have given up trying. What I'm mostly sick of is people trying to tell me that they're the greatest thing to happen to prog in the history of the world and that everything else, by comparison, is crap. I can read all the arguments I want on this page, but going back and listening to the KD albums will not prove anything to me that they have any of the elements presented. Perhaps it's worthless to argue since I do "have it out for them" - although it has been nice actually getting people to explain their stance rather than just say "Kayo Dot is super innovative!". I still don't see any of this "Mixing influences from several 19th-20th century composers, 73-74 era King Crimson, freejazz, black metal, electronic music etc", I just hear very boring music. So to summerize - I just don't get it and never will.

If you dont like them, fair enough, I fully accept that they arent for everyone, and chances ae there's a lot of people that really wont like them, in the same way that I really dont like Rush or Yes (just to put up a few examples). I think I know which few people your on about and I dislike that attitude myself, especially since KD arent flawless.

I cant speek about 19th and 20th century composers and free jazz as I dont know much about them, but the Crimson and Death/Black metal influences are as obvious as a slap in the face to me, only you can change the Death to Post/Doom/Drone metal influence on Dowsing....

sleeper wrote: King By-Tor, you seem to be working very hard at not liking KD. This part of Rocktopus's post; "Mixing influences from several 19th-20th century composers, 73-74 era King Crimson, freejazz, black metal, electronic music etc.. is certainly more innovative that sounding like a mix between Yes and Genesis etc, and not really adding something that can be considered "new".", goes a long way to answer your original question, and you've conviniently ignored it. I believe Alex's original point about not comparing modern Avant Garde bands with the classics is more to do witht he fact that rock music was only beginning to reach the hight of its development, leaving masses of room for inovation. That room is largely gone gone now so modern bands have to play around with the restricted space thats left. Your TFK comparison falls completely flat for one reason, they and every other retro band is out to do one thing, keep the style of Yes, Genesis and oters alive, using modern recording techniques and instruments is hardly inovative as there is nothing new to the music. As for the Psychowhatsit method of composing that Alex mentioned, that sounds more like the method maudlin of the Welll used, I think KD's is a bit more "normal" than that. Oh, and I'd like to know who you've heard doing the same as KD.

Thanks Sleeper.

Just one more doubt, since I'm not very informed on this one. I've heard from TD interviews that KD music is pretty influenced by Yusef Lateef, including more autophysiopsychic methods. Never heard of MotW having this feature... Could you extend a little bit please? Thanks

define this "higher level", because the influences I heard were pretty clear.

AlexUC wrote: King By-Tor wrote: Crimson I can see, and I commented on that in my review, but doesn't the presence of obvious influence bring down how "innovative" someone can be? Then Zappa isn't innovative for having clear Varèse influences, and Magma for having clear influences of jazz & neo classical music. As I've said before, talking about innovation is almost like talking about "which is the best...". BTW, the Crimson influences on KD are not that obvious, just on a higher level, as you can say Tool has Crimson influences, or Opeth has Camel influences.

Careful, your beginning to sound a bit pretentious.

sleeper wrote: AlexUC wrote: King By-Tor wrote: Crimson I can see, and I commented on that in my review, but doesn't the presence of obvious influence bring down how "innovative" someone can be? Then Zappa isn't innovative for having clear Varèse influences, and Magma for having clear influences of jazz & neo classical music. As I've said before, talking about innovation is almost like talking about "which is the best...". BTW, the Crimson influences on KD are not that obvious, just on a higher level, as you can say Tool has Crimson influences, or Opeth has Camel influences. Careful, your beginning to sound a bit pretentious.