Martin Turner's Wishbone ash to re-record Argus

 

No offense, please, but I don't quite understand the depth of bitterness and negativity being voiced toward the idea by many here. (Other than the fact that -- as I've long observed here -- many prog fans are rather fanatical, and almost obsessive toward "their" music, elevating it far above "mere" rock or pop, into something almost sacred or classical. In that sense, many progholes can be similar to some snooty jazz or classical fans and "purists.")

 

 

1. We'll always have the original Argus -- no new recording is going to affect my copy of that classic, fantastic album.

 

2. Other rock classics & popular albums have been re-worked before, and never, as far as I could tell, to the detriment or 'overshadowing' of the originals. examples that come to mind are Tubular Bells (orchestral), Jesus Christ Superstar and Tommy (movie soundtrack versions), The Wall, etc. Sometimes the results are interesting, though mostly, they fail to achieve the impact of the originals.

 

3. Argus has near-mythic status in classic rock/prog circles (in a somewhat "cultish" fashion). Most longterm fans will ignore the new version, and are free to do so, but a few more open-minded types (like me) will want to check it out, just out of curiosity, to see how different musicians, and newer technology, impact upon the music.

 

4. The "kids" who don't know WA or the original album won't suddenly "latch on" to this new version by a bunch of aging rockers they've never heard of. Why would they? Does anyone really imagine it's suddenly going to swamp the commercial airwaves -- or that today's kids pay much attention to radio in the first place? Do you really think "new" fans of the new album will descend on us here, unaware of the original, or arrogantly announcing the new one to be superior?

 

So, what are you all so worried about? Haven't Beatles songs been covered by nearly everyone, but aren't the originals still, by far, the best and best known? Doesn't classical music get re-recorded and re-interpreted, with different 'bands' (orchestras and ensembles) again and again? Don't bands put out live versions of popular, often much older, material? What's the big difference, or "danger' here? Why so much concern? No one's going to come into your house, take your old, original Argus away from you and substitute the new one, or force you to even LISTEN to (let alone buy) the new one!

 

 

It could be interesting. Would you not want to see the new band perform the old material in a club? What's the big deal with recording it?

 

 

 

I say leave them up there! 'Nouveau Calls' (as in No Vocals...) and 'Here To Hear' are marred by the high-gloss, style-over-substance production jobs that were typical of the 80s, IMHO- speaking for myself, I feel the analogue feel of the early 70s albums have worn far better. Do the band ever play anything from these anymore? I think they may have done stuff from 'Nouveau Calls' in the past but rarely seem to bother with 'Here To Hear'. Mind you, I'd brush stuff like 'Cosmic Jazz' under the carpet as well if I'd done it...

 

I must have blinked, Wetton wasn't in WA in their heyday, was he?

 

Daft idea - WA were the epitome of the rock band that sounded prog, causing us long debate as to whether a real prog band had to have keyboards. With Argus and Pilgrimage the concensus was that  keyboard weren't essential. Can't see what will be improved - and further can the enthusiasm that would have been there for the original recordings, still be there having done those number 100's if not 1000's of times live?

 

Smacks of trying to fix something that ain't broken.

 

I heard about a three-pronged tour with Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash, The Groundhogs and Focus which I'll still go and see though as it's playing in a nearby venue.