2nd Round Portland Bracket: ELP v. Camel

Hercules wrote: rogerthat wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Stool Man wrote: Camel didn't make Love Beach. Neither Trilogy or Brain Salad Surgery. Only the ones who take the risk can ruin an album. Playing Pictures at an Exhibition before a myriad of hippies who didn't even knew who Mussorgsky was, is a risk Camel always played safe with soporiferous albums. I can only listen Moonmadness without feeling an urge to go to sleep . Iván Kind of sums up my views, though I probably like Mirage more than any ELP album.  Even Mirage was heavily derivative of a lot of Canterbury. Er, no it wasn't. Camel didn't know where Canterbury was until Richard Sinclair joined.

kenethlevine wrote: listen to the buildup and denouement of the title track of Camel's "Stationary Traveller", often considered one of their lesser albums, from 1984.  That's all the raw aggression and emotion I need in my music.     As for ELP's fun light tracks, they all came across as unfunny jokes, that's why people criticized them for those efforts, not because they weren't serious enough.  If you are going to be light and funny, do it well.  See "Back on the Farm" from Camel's "Breathless" album for an example.  Don't dream about the freakin Wild West as if you have a clue LOL.  God did ELP suck

I was expecting this response.  Well, I used the term in the same sense that this website presumably does (in classifying Canterbury as a sub genre and not just as a scene belonging to a particular region).  I may be wrong in doing so but all I meant by the original statement that Camel did derive elements of the Canterbury style of music, irrespective of the source.  And I am not wrong there.

Edited by rogerthat - December 18 2014 at 10:11

Flight123 wrote: Roger That, Roger That.  Camel are generally considered part of the Canterbury family.  Its not just the Richard Sinclair connection.  For instance, I saw Andy Ward playing in 'Going Going' with Hugh Hopper (supporting Gongmaison at Brixton Fridge)

I would concur that they are Canterbury-related, but to me it's not all that apparent other than on a few tracks mostly, not surprisingly, from Rain Dances and Breathless.  Supertwister, the one which really got this debate going, seems a bit too mellow and straightforward to be a Canterbury tune, and it's not smug enough 

Lear'sFool wrote: As another note about the Canterbury bands: most English bands of the scene never hung out in Canterbury - the scene actually revolved around London. It was a style, first and foremost, rather than a scene. And then a few French and Dutch bands hopped on. There's a reason Wyatt called his one band Matching Mole, and do remember the make-up of Gong.

Indeed. And also remember that bands from other countries were associated to the Canterbury movement on account of their sound: not just Supersister (Dutch) or Patrick Forgas (French), but also Picchio dal Pozzo (Italian) and The Muffins (USA, and still active!). Just like Krautrock, Canterbury was a style much more than a mere geographical location.

I've been wrestling with the Canterbury question for a while.  I was asked to be the lead guy for the Canterbury sub here, and it's kind of a balancing act between my own personal view (Canterbury Scene refers to a very specific and limited time and place) and the more broad view this site has used in practice (and not without good reason).  Like it or not, the site uses the expanded definition of "Canterbury" as a genre.  The hard part then becomes drawing that line.  What does a band really need to do to "sound Canterbury"?  Soft Machine and Caravan were two completely different sounds. 

Just a side comment, but as I said, I'm still working it out.  There was no rulebook that came with the job.


Edited by HolyMoly - December 18 2014 at 15:10

timothy leary wrote: ^ this might help.......http://calyx.perso.neuf.fr

Great idea, TL. Thanks.

I posted the link earlier, but I think no one noticed it...

Obviously I missed your link........sorry for the redundancy