Modern Prog: First Album

SteveG wrote: Dare I ask what Paul thinks about Zappa?

Nogbad_The_Bad 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? While Paul has provided a star rating for the Avant albums in his post I don't believe he has actually put those ratings into the database. I couldn't find any Avant album ratings in his profile. He has simple copied a 1 star row and pasted it against the relevant album in the post. For this I am thankful as adding in a rating without listening to more than one track would be boorish.

Hugh Manatee wrote: 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). 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 don't know if there was that much humour involved so much as the maintaining of a persona. At any rate I suppose you are alluding to the merits of judging an album within the context of a body of work as opposed to the merits of judging an album based on its own particular characteristics. Given the vast body of work produced by The Swans, this would be a daunting prospect indeed for any newcomer, to with hold judgement on any single album until it had been placed into the context of their entire catalogue. Judging an album on its own merits (particularly a debut album) can seem harsh as it may well be unrepresentetive on some levels and so is not necessarily what can be expected from future efforts. However, the presentation may differ but the tone (the agenda) will be set and remain regardless. How that tone resonates will decide how far the listener is carried.

Sorry, I expect you had good reason to snip my post where you did, but I added the next paragraph (I have the some might find annoying habit of often quoting people's posts in full when I choose to quote more than a phrase which can make things harder to read with long posts, but I worry about losing context or nuance).

Humour is in the eye of the beholder; I don't know the intent. Speaking of intent, one way that I would rather judge the work is by what I think was the intent of the project and how successfully I think it works. I think it is useful to try to judge a piece of "art" on its own merits (as one perceives those merits) and in the context of the oeuvre (a little research helps rather than just listening to one track - I might try to listen to a variety from different albums based on googling Reddit recommendations). Paul had been told that he would not appreciate that album and what he might prefer, and that Swans changes style (and its not just about the comments on Swans). These discussions have spanned more than one thread over months, but it can feel like treading water. I've tried to give it some context in discussion with Paul already (telling him which music I think he would like more), and it just felt like that had not been taken into consideration. Paul does have this general policy of listening to a complete discography from the beginning, and that would not be my approach. I'd rather look to the reviews -- and I like to use rateyourmusic because each album is tagged individually.

Reading up a bit first so you know what to expect can be useful (then one has no business complaining about it if it meets those expectations too). And I'm fine with someone not liking something as long as one isn't so arrogant that one claims that no one should, and that one generally avoids trying to make negative comments out of ignorance.

This is the line that I particularly objected to "Remind me not to include any Avant Prog in future polls. " Since I don't think it's fair to judge all of avant prog (I don't even think Filth is avant prog and don't know who is making that claim) let alone all of Swans by that one album (let alone just the first track), especially when that issue has already been addressed and other music by Swans has been presented that sounds nothing like the music of Filth. It comes across as mean-spirited, overly negative, uncharitable and far too dismissive (as well as ignorant).

There are ways to present things in a more balanced way. Since this so-called modern prog list came out of mentions from others, I also think it's rude to the participants who mentioned those things. It reminds me of various threads where people asking for music suggestions in topics and then complain about the music even if t fits the criteria because they don't like it instead of being grateful for the effort in answering a question.


Edited by Logan - April 18 2022 at 09:14

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.

Psychedelic Paul wrote: No worries. I'll just post my ratings only in the second Modern Prog poll, without passing comment, which will avoid another "long tiresome blog of bilious dreck" from me.

Grumpyprogfan wrote: 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.  Cheers to being the black sheep of PA.

Edited by Psychedelic Paul - April 19 2022 at 00:29

Logan wrote:   Sorry, I expect you had good reason to snip my post where you did,

^^ Gary, I don't think it would have made much difference had I been into Swans or not -- my concerns would be the same (obviously it helps having a level of familiarity with the subject it relates to), nor are they my heroes -- it's mostly a recent infatuation, and I'm more into other things now -- what I'm into on any day or month changes. I have focused on the Avant Prog comment, and while I am into Avant Prog and don't consider Filth to be Avant Prog, not do I really enjoy Filth, my concern would be there if it was not about a category that I like a lot from. I do think you have really missed or evaded my point, and we are talking at cross-purposes. I also feel that I could spend a long time trying to write a detailed, well-constructed and thought-out essay as explanation and you would just quote a few words and miss the point, so there is I think no point in us continuing conversations.

By the way, maybe I will try listening to the earliest Mostly Autumn song, I'm sure it wont make me decide to swear of everything that I or others might label Prog Folk (or I guess for the analogy, perhaps "more conventional, melodic music" would make more sense since Mostly Autumn's is labeled Prog Folk), but then I have the advantage of being into a lot of Prog Folk. I haven't explored Mostly Autumn music, but should it come up in a chat with someone who I appreciate such as Paul and he recommends some that he thinks would fit my tastes, I'd be sure to check it out. And if I enjoy something and people have put time into explaining what they might and might not enjoy and been warned that the first album and that the band changes, then I will try to keep that in mind. Note, this kind of conversation is not just been Swans or Avant prog, I have made similar points with Therion (which I haven't even really been into) and others not to quickly judge by the first album or too easily dismiss something, nor do these issues only relate to my experiences with Paul.

Paul liked this by Swans (Michael Gira), and I was pleased, but it didn't really matter: CLICK I appreciate that he took the time to listen to it and hopefully my advice and comments on Swans was rather helpful. The first album would be one of the worst places for Paul to start, but I understand that's what he does. Generally speaking, I think one should be careful when judging something and with the comments (especially if people have gone to lengths to try to elucidate you and that seems to have been ignored to make the same kinds of comments again and again).

I actually like “Filth”, but I can definitely understand why a lot of people would not. It wouldn’t be my top choice from this poll, but it would quite likely be top five. I was torn between voting for Present or Cardiacs, but in the end went for Present, as I figured they would probably attract fewer votes than Cardiacs. So it’s partially my fault that Mostly Autumn are tied with the discordant shambles that is Present. You’re welcome! 😜

Psychedelic Paul wrote: nick_h_nz wrote: I actually like “Filth”, but I can definitely understand why a lot of people would not. It wouldn’t be my top choice from this poll, but it would quite likely be top five. I was torn between voting for Present or Cardiacs, but in the end went for Present, as I figured they would probably attract fewer votes than Cardiacs. So it’s partially my fault that Mostly Autumn are tied with the discordant shambles that is Present. You’re welcome! 😜 I'll get over it. Stranger things have happened in the world of prog, but at least I can console myself with the fact that Guapo, Swans & Thinking Plague didn't pick up any votes at all against Mostly Autumn's four votes in the poll.