I cannot stand Gentle Giant

richardh wrote: Howard the Duck wrote: I find it interesting that a lot of people who found the mid to later albums challenging preferred the earlier ones, because those ones are by and large the weaker albums for me (but have some solid early tracks here and there). Never knew that most of the early material was never written out - kind of brings to mind the lyric from Interview where they imply that they really found their sound from Octopus onwards. Octopus , The Power and The Glory and Freehand are the ones that I really like.   I would be happy to have a compilation of the best tracks from the first 3 albums but there are some real gems contained therein.   In A Glass House is the real problematic one for me. It's another Tales From Topographic Oceans from my perspective but thankfully not as long!!

moshkito wrote: Hi, It's a shame ... if anything within the first 5 or 6 GG albums, is a bunch of facts that you will never give attention to or some credit for their inventiveness. 1. Gary Green has been on record, specifying that in the early days, they never wrote anything down ... they just played. So the next time you listen, recognize that this is NOT ABOUT A SONG, but whatever comes out in the music ... similar to Gayle Ebbett specifying in his band that they might start with an A or a B, but will likely end up with a X, or Z ... which means, in case you don't know, that this is about the feel and the sound of the music ... not what you want ... you want hits ... GG is not for you, and many of us here will probably say bad things like ... good riddance! I would rather try to explain this for you, if you have the ears for it, but the music is throwing you off already ... and I doubt that any of our words will help! 2. The incredible musicianship of each member of the band, ought to at the very least, allow you an inch or two of ... yeah ... that's really good and tight ... and they were better in concert, even though most of the videos if it all have sync issues, and sound awful ... which doesn't help the band a whole lot. The show I got to see, their encore was 25 to 30 minutes long, and in that time all 6 band members played all instruments ... all 6 played drums, bass, guitar ... you name it ... so, when it comes to musicianship, I seriously doubt many bands can even stand up to the socks in these guys. 3. I have my doubts that you have actually listened to GG ... you played a few seconds, it didn't click and you tried another spot, same thing, and you decided it's not for you. You will NEVER, EVER, get an appreciation for a lot of the music in the 20th century, almost all of which was anti-melody and used a broken down orchestra (that too, but it means different combinations, not the usual!) to create different moods and ideas in music ... witness BERNARD HERRMAN and how his different use of an orchestra created some amazing sounds for so many fantasy films in the 50's and eventually many of the films for Hitchcock ... however, I am not sure that you can even consider a good listen to these things ... in some cases, the music is down right scary and weird ... and you already specified that's not your click. You want your metal, melodic, and not "anti-music". 4. Music listening, and appreciation, required one let go of ideas and tastes. If you study (take a music appreciation course in school!) some of this for the last 500 years, you will find nothing but the development of music from 2 or 3 instruments, to 150 and then the deconstruction of an orchestra to various weird combinations, that were most clear and represented with Stokowsky, who used to microphone special sections of the orchestra, in order to give that section a wider/larger role in its piece. It was perfect for a few films, and specially FANTASIA.  5. At the time, there was a lot of "anti-film" (French, started in the 50's probably with Godard), "anti-theater" (English and American, with actors controlling the highlights ... think Stellllllllllllllllaaaaa (Brando) or Olivier doing his words of Shakespeare, making a set of words more important than the whole play!), "anti-literature" as exemplified by a lot of writers doing significantly different things, and the Americans probably had a lot to say bout that, but the French scene was also important. The "anti-music" was more centered on the classical de-construction of music and it sounding weird and off beat and specially off key. It created a lot of strange things, in England and France ... many of which are now considered historical, since the folks involved were not exactly street urchins, but really well educated musicians that DID KNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING! The thing that bothers me the most is how far behind the rock music scene was compared to many of these ... we're talking anywhere from 10 to 20 years ... and of course, now we could say that many listeners, some 50 or 60 years later, have made this even worse. I, myself, am not the great GG fan ... but I have their first 7 albums ... because the musicianship of it all makes 5 or 6 of the bands in PA's top ten sound like high school bands! With the simplistic of music and sound possible being considered "important" ... which if 500 years of history is an example ... that's backwards! have some heart ... do some serious listening ... it's not crap ... but really special stuff and the only one of its kind. many have tried to copy it and pay tribute to it ... but if you don't have it inside your heart and at the tip of your fingers, the copy just will not be as good. I don't dislike SB, but I would not put it in the same sentence as GG, either ... they did not grow up to be a special band on their own ... they grew up to love other bands ... how social and American this is ... you try to make sure that the fans love you and they think you are cool. Sorry SB ... I have GG in my collection, not SB (only 2 CD's!).

moshkito wrote: Hi, It's a shame ... if anything within the first 5 or 6 GG albums, is a bunch of facts that you will never give attention to or some credit for their inventiveness. 1. Gary Green has been on record, specifying that in the early days, they never wrote anything down ... they just played. So the next time you listen, recognize that this is NOT ABOUT A SONG, but whatever comes out in the music ... similar to Gayle Ebbett specifying in his band that they might start with an A or a B, but will likely end up with a X, or Z ... which means, in case you don't know, that this is about the feel and the sound of the music ... not what you want ... you want hits ... GG is not for you, and many of us here will probably say bad things like ... good riddance! I would rather try to explain this for you, if you have the ears for it, but the music is throwing you off already ... and I doubt that any of our words will help! 2. The incredible musicianship of each member of the band, ought to at the very least, allow you an inch or two of ... yeah ... that's really good and tight ... and they were better in concert, even though most of the videos if it all have sync issues, and sound awful ... which doesn't help the band a whole lot. The show I got to see, their encore was 25 to 30 minutes long, and in that time all 6 band members played all instruments ... all 6 played drums, bass, guitar ... you name it ... so, when it comes to musicianship, I seriously doubt many bands can even stand up to the socks in these guys. 3. I have my doubts that you have actually listened to GG ... you played a few seconds, it didn't click and you tried another spot, same thing, and you decided it's not for you. You will NEVER, EVER, get an appreciation for a lot of the music in the 20th century, almost all of which was anti-melody and used a broken down orchestra (that too, but it means different combinations, not the usual!) to create different moods and ideas in music ... witness BERNARD HERRMAN and how his different use of an orchestra created some amazing sounds for so many fantasy films in the 50's and eventually many of the films for Hitchcock ... however, I am not sure that you can even consider a good listen to these things ... in some cases, the music is down right scary and weird ... and you already specified that's not your click. You want your metal, melodic, and not "anti-music". 4. Music listening, and appreciation, required one let go of ideas and tastes. If you study (take a music appreciation course in school!) some of this for the last 500 years, you will find nothing but the development of music from 2 or 3 instruments, to 150 and then the deconstruction of an orchestra to various weird combinations, that were most clear and represented with Stokowsky, who used to microphone special sections of the orchestra, in order to give that section a wider/larger role in its piece. It was perfect for a few films, and specially FANTASIA.  5. At the time, there was a lot of "anti-film" (French, started in the 50's probably with Godard), "anti-theater" (English and American, with actors controlling the highlights ... think Stellllllllllllllllaaaaa (Brando) or Olivier doing his words of Shakespeare, making a set of words more important than the whole play!), "anti-literature" as exemplified by a lot of writers doing significantly different things, and the Americans probably had a lot to say bout that, but the French scene was also important. The "anti-music" was more centered on the classical de-construction of music and it sounding weird and off beat and specially off key. It created a lot of strange things, in England and France ... many of which are now considered historical, since the folks involved were not exactly street urchins, but really well educated musicians that DID KNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING! The thing that bothers me the most is how far behind the rock music scene was compared to many of these ... we're talking anywhere from 10 to 20 years ... and of course, now we could say that many listeners, some 50 or 60 years later, have made this even worse. I, myself, am not the great GG fan ... but I have their first 7 albums ... because the musicianship of it all makes 5 or 6 of the bands in PA's top ten sound like high school bands! With the simplistic of music and sound possible being considered "important" ... which if 500 years of history is an example ... that's backwards! have some heart ... do some serious listening ... it's not crap ... but really special stuff and the only one of its kind. many have tried to copy it and pay tribute to it ... but if you don't have it inside your heart and at the tip of your fingers, the copy just will not be as good. I don't dislike SB, but I would not put it in the same sentence as GG, either ... they did not grow up to be a special band on their own ... they grew up to love other bands ... how social and American this is ... you try to make sure that the fans love you and they think you are cool. Sorry SB ... I have GG in my collection, not SB (only 2 CD's!).

You're over generalizing about what people think of GG, and over intellectualizing music appreciation. You may even be doing all that without realizing it! Whatever.

The point is, no one has criticized GG as musicians. It's clear from the 4 albums I have in my collection, that they are technically talented and versatile musicians, but then broadly speaking you get that a lot in prog rock, so it's fairly disingenuous to suggest people don't appreciate the bands musical talent. If they like progressive rock, then they'll likely recognise good musicians when they hear them.

The idea of just letting the music take form without much formal composition is fine. Improvisation and/or instinctively letting music just 'flow' and take shape organically is testimony to the bands technical skill, and open minded approach to making music. I applaud that, but it doesn't obligate me to always enjoy the end result.

I feel like An Inmate's Lullaby is quite a divisive track, fans of the band or not. It's a little "too wonky" for many. Even though that's my favorite GG record, that track is still a "WTF am I listening to..?!" moment for me. I don't think I could personally call it weak, it's just very, very different. GG always had that combinational vocal flair absent in the majority of popular progressive acts. Those dudes knew music very well.

I have the first 6 GG albums and most of VdGG. I like to listen to all the different things going on simultaneously, as with Art Zoyd, Henry Cow and some modern classical.

My main issue at GG is, Derek Shulman's voice doesn't sound relaxed, which is a pity because he has very good ears. John Weathers's drumming sounds forced too.

On the other hand, Kerry Minnear's falsetto singing brings something very different

Let's check instrumentals

I don't like how they look on stage at all ! Eyes closed I find they look way better !

And here (at least the intro) ?

Nevermind ?

Edited by Shiny globe - July 31 2019 at 13:48

Blacksword wrote: Never been much of a GG fan either. I do like Octopus, but that's all I need. There's too much 'cleverness' for the sake of it in their music, and not enough quality songwriting and emotion.

BaldJean wrote: I just want to point out that after discovering "Knots" at the age of 4 I used to run around the house going "It hurts him to think..." endlessly until everybody yelled at me to stop. it is my earliest childhood memory

dougmcauliffe wrote: Well I apologize in advance to gentle giant fans... I’ve really tried with these guys but I’m just not hearing what everyone else is. The only song that doesn’t give me a headache is proclamation. When I’m listening I realize their music is very unique but overall I just think... it’s bad. I’ve listened to power and the glory, octopus and in a glass house and free hand all a couple times now and I just can’t get into it. I can usually get into most prog, I hated van der graaf on first listen but now that’s a favorite, but with them I feel there is plenty of movement in their songs, with gentle giant I feel like they play 2 riffs a song and then do some uncomfortable vocal harmonies. I think so sincere may be one of the worst songs I’ve ever heard. Spock’s Beard and Neal Morse imitating gentle giant is more enjoyable then gentle giant to me Does anyone else have a similar experience with other popular artists?

Yes. Did I start this thread? No? Well, you said it all for me. A band that gives me a headache skillfully.

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: It's all about taste. Typically if you like one band in a certain subgenre you will like others.Then again there are people who like Genesis but not Yes and vice versa. If someone does not like GG I would advise them to steer away from bands who are just as unconventional(ie RIO/avant)if not more so. You might come around to it at some point; then again you may not.

I love RIO/Avant - Frank Zappa, Henry Kaiser, Fred Frith, Univers Zero, especially.   I actually liked GG when I first discovered them in the 80s. They had annoyingly short songs with a lot of flighty staccato notes and a decided lack of much craved for darkness, but I was still expecting to find their one masterpiece. I never found it. They're all the same. Then, once they triggered a couple headaches (yeah, that wasn't just an expression in my case), it became obvious to me that I really didn't like their stuff.


I shouldn't be entirely negative. Their are some nice medieval-sounding pieces. They're good with that historical element.




Edited by HackettFan - July 31 2019 at 19:42