Modern Prog: First Album

Chris Farley was special. 

Don't let the negative comments get you down, Paul. Anglagard (the most votes yet in this poll) is barely a three star album for me. But like you, my musical tastes are not in line with PA voters. 

Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: Psychedelic Paul wrote: David_D wrote: Psychedelic Paul wrote: In the case of four out of five of those bands (with the exception of the Cardiacs) I didn't even get beyond the first track on the album before I'd heard enough.  As I see it, Paul, it would certainly be most fair not to rate albums, you've heard so little of - even if your rating is very subjective.  Why do it? Anyone who likes Avant Prog will most likely regard a 1-star rating and a thumbs down from me as a recommendation, bearing in mind my conservative tastes veer more towards classic Symphonic Prog.  I doubt it, we'll just assume you never bothered to listen to more than one track & therefore any commentary is irrelevant.

David_D wrote: Psychedelic Paul wrote: In the case of four out of five of those bands (with the exception of the Cardiacs) I didn't even get beyond the first track on the album before I'd heard enough.  As I see it, Paul, it would certainly be most fair not to rate albums, you've heard so little of - even if your rating is very subjective.  Why do it?

Logan wrote: I like and use humour as much as the next guy. One easily could squeeze in an ugly duckling reference, while also saying something along the lines of what I said. I'm sure if I were to write some Swans reviews then I'd bring up the ugly ducking (I would expect many have) as a reference. Filth is, I think, an ugly album, and the name fits that (as do things like the EP Public Castration Is a Good Idea and some song titles that I wouldn't even mention from the early days -- horrible). Michael Gira who formed Swans said he choose the name because "Swans are majestic, beautiful looking creatures. With really ugly temperaments." A moral message from the ugly duckling story involves accepting something and someone as it is, not discriminating based on appearances, and being true to oneself, and I tend to appreciate reviews that reflect that philosophy to some extent. That doesn't mean one has to like the music, and I would have never expected Paul to like or appreciate that album (one can appreciate things without liking them -- I appreciate music from that album more than I like it, but that's because it helped pave the wave to the Swans and related eras that I like).

SteveG wrote: Necrotica wrote: Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: Necrotica wrote: Am I missing something here? I don't remember Paul provoking anyone with his comments or ratings, whether the ratings are controversial or not Psychedelic Paul wrote:  Cardiacs - The punkish "singer" sounds terrible and the tuneless music has been described as "Pronk" Guapo - Don't waste your time listening to this tuneless punk dross. It's so bad, it's not even worth taking the time to post an album link or video. Guapo? It sounds more like guano. Present - although if the discordant shambles below is anything to go by, we're not missing out on much. Swans - This is so bad, it sounds like a bunch of people got together to randomly hit bits of furniture and make a noise. I can't believe anyone would pay good money to listen to this Yeah, nothing provoking there  Don't worry, I'll be redacting my original comment after talking with Cristi. I can understand where he was coming from  Dare I ask what Paul thinks about Zappa?

David_D wrote: Psychedelic Paul wrote: In the case of four out of five of those bands (with the exception of the Cardiacs) I didn't even get beyond the first track on the album before I'd heard enough.  As I see it, Paul, it would certainly be most fair not to rate albums, you've heard so little of - even if your rating is very subjective.  Why do it?

Edited by Nogbad_The_Bad - April 18 2022 at 07:58

SteveG wrote: Necrotica wrote: Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: Necrotica wrote: Am I missing something here? I don't remember Paul provoking anyone with his comments or ratings, whether the ratings are controversial or not Psychedelic Paul wrote:  Cardiacs - The punkish "singer" sounds terrible and the tuneless music has been described as "Pronk" Guapo - Don't waste your time listening to this tuneless punk dross. It's so bad, it's not even worth taking the time to post an album link or video. Guapo? It sounds more like guano. Present - although if the discordant shambles below is anything to go by, we're not missing out on much. Swans - This is so bad, it sounds like a bunch of people got together to randomly hit bits of furniture and make a noise. I can't believe anyone would pay good money to listen to this Yeah, nothing provoking there  Don't worry, I'll be redacting my original comment after talking with Cristi. I can understand where he was coming from  Dare I ask what Paul thinks about Zappa?

Hugh Manatee wrote: Logan wrote:  Actually, this "If these are Swans, then this tuneless mess of an album is the ugly duckling that nobody wants, so it's no surprise that no one voted for Swans in the poll. Remind me not to include any Avant Prog in future polls " was annoying because it's been mentioned again and again that the band is diverse, that you wouldn't enjoy where it starts, what you might enjoy and I haven't seen anyone even call it avant prog. Tarring a whole genre by one album that I haven't seen called avant prog is ridiculous. It is like you are not listening and considering how others respond. You tend to glibly deflect, move the goalposts and miss the point. If I had written that review, I would have said something like "Well, I was warned but still went ahead and listened anyway, and I should have heeded the warning. I found this as brutal as could be expected. I have been told they I might enjoy later albums more, it couldn't be less methinks. I will not pass judgement until I have heard more of the discography as I have ben told how diverse it is and liked a song that was shared with me before which was very different stylistically". Then Paul would have missed out on squeezing the "ugly duckiling" reference into his review".That was never going to happen. That's the showstopper.

I like and use humour as much as the next guy.

One easily could squeeze in an ugly duckling reference, while also saying something along the lines of what I said. I'm sure if I were to write some Swans reviews then I'd bring up the ugly ducking (I would expect many have) as
a reference. Filth is, I think, an ugly album, and the name fits that (as do things like the EP Public Castration Is a Good Idea and some song titles that I wouldn't even mention from the early days -- horrible). Michael Gira who formed Swans said he choose the name because "Swans are majestic, beautiful looking creatures. With really ugly temperaments."

A moral message from the ugly duckling story involves accepting something and someone as it is, not discriminating based on appearances, and being true to oneself, and I tend to appreciate reviews that reflect that philosophy to some extent. That doesn't mean one has to like the music, and I would have never expected Paul to like or appreciate that album (one can appreciate things without liking them -- I appreciate music from that album more than I like it, but that's because it helped pave the wave to the Swans and related eras that I like).

The album actually and verifiably is the duckling that some people want. Some people love the early ugly brutal noisy and raw sound of early Swans, and actually don't like Swans much as it changed sound (like with Jarboe's involvement who brought in more of a sense of melody) . Some people can appreciate that Swans has been transformative and diverse. I don't much appreciate the earliest albums either, really my interest starts most with Children of God five or so albums in. What I do appreciate is that that ugliness became an aspect of later, more diverse and tuneful albums that I love.   Children of God still has some of the brutal, or ugly, and noisy aspects of the earlier works while having more contrasts and having beauty to me years (what is beautiful of course can be in the eye of the beholder). And I like the folk aspect and more that came into the music later.

I know Paul likes Dead Can Dance, and Swans can be compared with this band in that both incorporate dark folk, ritualistic albums, deal with transcendence, darkwave vs no wave, gothic rock elements, both have been in the post-punk realm and have had hypnotic and ambient qualities.... But I don't really care if Paul or you likes Swans or not. I must say that I really got very big into Swans last December when trying to point out music to Paul that I thought he might like from the band (had liked Swans before and loved Soundtracks for the Blind years ago). I was very into Xiu Xiu at the time, and Swans shares qualities with that, as well as with various neo-folk leaning acts I have been into such as Current 93, and various industrial music that I got into (partially due to David Lynch's influence). Swans was a natural fit for a particular voyage of musical exploration that I have been into over the last year.

Since it came up before, I wouldn't describe Filth as Avant Prog, by the way, nor as Prog genre (Swans does have an experimental rock quality). Swans is included in Post-Rock at PA, but I would have taken it for Eclectic Prog for its overall discography.

Jared wrote: Psychedelic Paul wrote:  1984: Pallas - The Sentinel - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_TaS3ukydpLcpeZ4mTlBspQfPJcAsh94 Really? Good grief...

Edited by Nogbad_The_Bad - April 18 2022 at 07:04