Mahavishnu Orchestra finally "clicked" on me

Certif1ed wrote: The music of the Mahavishnu is fantastic - McClaughlin can certainly compose well, and the band get the groove on like troopers. Pity about the rubbish guitar playing on "Inner Mounting Flame" though - almost all of it is really awful.

You just pretend that you understand and like Mahavishnu orchestra but in a fact it's not your favorite music.

pero wrote: You just pretend that you understand and like Mahavishnu orchestra but in a fact it's not your favorite music. First you have to listen to his 3 solo albums before Mahavishnu orchestra   Extrapolation is more jazz oriented without frantic solos and truly masterpiece.   My goals beyond and esspecially "Electric guitarist" are more like "Birds of fire"   In your other rewiews you give 3 Hawkwind albums 5*. For me Hawkwind is a joke in prog. I would give them 2* top.

    
I don't pretend to understand Mahavishnu - it's a plain fact that I do understand their music from my own perspective. You're right that it's not my favourite music - but what has that got to do with anything?

I don't pretend to like the music - it's really something, as my review discusses. However, as the previous poster has elucidated, the guitar playing is "Emporer's New Clothes", ie, it's not very good. I have no doubts in McClaughlin's pedigree and that he's a great writer, it's just that his playing on "Birds of Fire" is awful.


Your opinions are your opinions and you're welcome to them, but Hawkwind aren't a joke and I provide reasoning behind my reviews - reasoning that is sadly lacking in your reply.

Why would you only give those albums 2 stars when they're so obviously innovative and of interest to proggers? Awarding less than 3 is a joke - you clearly have an irrational dislike for Hawkwind!

You need to listen to Hawkwind to get what they achieve - since you plainly don't. Read my reviews again as you listen to the albums, that might help.

You don't have to agree with my reviews, but if you're going to make a point of disagreeing, please back up your opinions with reasoned discussion or I'm simply going to think you're a simple-minded time-waster.


    
    

Edited by Certif1ed - September 07 2006 at 03:31

I just knew this would turn into a heated debate... sorry Pero, but I have to agree with Certif1ed and JrKASperov for the most part, McLaughlin's playing on IMF is really sub-par, defnitely putting in the weakest performance of the five.

Not that I'm an experienced listener or anything...

^ If Mahavishnu compositions are the work of his pen, then he truly is a great writer. But being a great writer doesn't equal being a great soloist.

And I am talking about "The Inner Mounting Flame" here only, I haven't heard "Birds of Fire" in a long time.

I think Pero actually understands Mahavishnu, and I think the rest of you really don't. There's levels of enjoying the music...the fact that you mentioned the solos are horrible is proof you don't get it at all.

Because while they are technically solos in a sense because they're unison...they're not a traditional guitar solo. They're him making rythmic music with the band and playing lead/follow. If his "Staying on the same 4 frets" is a problem; yell at Miles Davis who stays on the same note for measures at a time. You just don't know jazz well and that's okay...you can still enjoy MO but you don't enjoy it like someone like Pero or myself.

Fusionman wrote: I think Pero actually understands Mahavishnu, and I think the rest of you really don't. There's levels of enjoying the music...the fact that you mentioned the solos are horrible is proof you don't get it at all. Because while they are technically solos in a sense because they're unison...they're not a traditional guitar solo. They're him making rythmic music with the band and playing lead/follow. If his "Staying on the same 4 frets" is a problem; yell at Miles Davis who stays on the same note for measures at a time. You just don't know jazz well and that's okay...you can still enjoy MO but you don't enjoy it like someone like Pero or myself.

    
All that proves is that you like the music and appreciate it on whatever level you appreciate it at.

To tell me I don't understand the music because I say that the solos are horrible is a bit of a cheap shot - or at best, a poor assumption.

To say that I don't know jazz well as a result is simply ridiculous - using patently flawed logic in order to hit back at someone who holds a different opinion.


Most of the soloing on "Birds of Fire" is not unison at all! What's it in unison with?

The rhythms in the guitar solos do not seem particularly notable - especially in respect to the superb rhythms coming from the band - and do little to contribute to the rhythmic flow of the band. JM is obviously playing lead/follow - except that no-one else is following, they're accompanying on the whole. There's very little "conversation" between soloist and band, just noodle - improvised ideas played in a variety of modes and very quickly - seemingly in the hope that no-one will notice that they're not particularly musical. If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance...

Staying on 4 frets isn't an issue for me - great music can be forged from simple ideas; Beethoven's 5th, for example, relies on a simple 4-note phrase throughout the entire symphony - and repeated ideas can be used to fabulous effect - Hawkwind, for example. It's just that here, it comes across as limited rather than expressive.


Of course, not everyone is going to enjoy the music the same way you do - taste is a large percentage of why anyone listens to a particular piece of music. However, don't use cheap put-downs as a way of trying to extinguish opposing opinions - it's just not elegant.

What is it, in your opinion, that I do not understand or get?


Try to answer without telling me again that I don't understand the music, unless you have some way of backing it up.
    
    

Edited by Certif1ed - September 07 2006 at 16:12

Certif1ed wrote: Fusionman wrote: I think Pero actually understands Mahavishnu, and I think the rest of you really don't. There's levels of enjoying the music...the fact that you mentioned the solos are horrible is proof you don't get it at all. Because while they are technically solos in a sense because they're unison...they're not a traditional guitar solo. They're him making rythmic music with the band and playing lead/follow. If his "Staying on the same 4 frets" is a problem; yell at Miles Davis who stays on the same note for measures at a time. You just don't know jazz well and that's okay...you can still enjoy MO but you don't enjoy it like someone like Pero or myself.      All that proves is that you like the music and appreciate it on whatever level you appreciate it at. To tell me I don't understand the music because I say that the solos are horrible is a bit of a cheap shot - or at best, a poor assumption. To say that I don't know jazz well as a result is simply ridiculous - using patently flawed logic in order to hit back at someone who holds a different opinion. Most of the soloing on "Birds of Fire" is not unison at all! What's it in unison with? The rhythms in the guitar solos do not seem particularly notable - especially in respect to the superb rhythms coming from the band - and do little to contribute to the rhythmic flow of the band. JM is obviously playing lead/follow - except that no-one else is following, they're accompanying on the whole. There's very little "conversation" between soloist and band, just noodle - improvised ideas played in a variety of modes and very quickly - seemingly in the hope that no-one will notice that they're not particularly musical. If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance... Staying on 4 frets isn't an issue for me - great music can be forged from simple ideas; Beethoven's 5th, for example, relies on a simple 4-note phrase throughout the entire symphony - and repeated ideas can be used to fabulous effect - Hawkwind, for example. It's just that here, it comes across as limited rather than expressive. Of course, not everyone is going to enjoy the music the same way you do - taste is a large percentage of why anyone listens to a particular piece of music. However, don't use cheap put-downs as a way of trying to extinguish opposing opinions - it's just not elegant. What is it, in your opinion, that I do not understand or get? Try to answer without telling me again that I don't understand the music, unless you have some way of backing it up.

I don't understand what the argument is; I said basically we appreciate it at a different level than you then you repeated that in your first sentence. You saying the solos are horrible is a bit daring compared to saying you don't get the solos or enjoy them.

I didn't mean to say unison, I completely mistyped. I should have said melodic or counter-melodic to actually get my point accross.

As well the rhythms are countering the rest of the band but it is still what I said.

The soloing should be viewed in an emotional veign not expressive.
    

Fusionman wrote: I don't understand what the argument is; I said basically we appreciate it at a different level than you then you repeated that in your first sentence. You saying the solos are horrible is a bit daring compared to saying you don't get the solos or enjoy them.

Well, you're arguing with my statements, and those of others, and we're replying. It's obvious that we appreciate the music at different levels - everyone does. I'm curious as to why anyone can think that the soloing is any good when it's plain as daylight to my ears that it's atrocious.

I get the solo ideas, I just don't enjoy them because I think they're horrible for reasons that I've given in my review (as I pointed out) and in earlier posts, which is why I didn't bother repeating them - but I'll extrapolate a few more in my replies to your later comments.

To remind you, the argument is that some of us think that the guitar playing is awful, and some think it's great - and so far, there's been very little from the "I think it's great" crew that supports their cause. Instead, there have been somewhat antagonistic comments that go some way to support the opposition!

Fusionman wrote: I didn't mean to say unison, I completely mistyped. I should have said melodic or counter-melodic to actually get my point accross.

But that's the problem - they're not really melodic, they're pure improvisation that have no melodic comment on the music as a whole - the ideas, if you can really call them that, are not in keeping with the surrounding material.

On "Inner Mounting Flame", there are a few unison ideas that actually work very well - e.g. "Meeting of the Spirits" - but they are the exception rather than the rule.

If they were counter-melodic, then they would need to follow some of the rules of the main melodies in order to maintain the wonderful coherence of the ensemble passages.

The fact is that they are not even related to the musical ideas around them - it's noodle.

This isn't an argument based on a loosely formed opinion: Some people think that music doesn't (or shouldn't) have rules, but they're wrong - it very much does.

It's fine to produce ground breaking and rule-breaking music, but the ground and rules set up by the music are completely ignored by JMs solos - like some kid in a garage session playing for the first time and not knowing what he's doing. I know that's a kinda fashion thing - but it plainly doesn't work as coherent music in this case.

Like I said, the compositions are great, it's just the lead guitar that's awful.

Fusionman wrote: As well the rhythms are countering the rest of the band but it is still what I said.

Yes, that's what you said, but I disagree - the rhythms are not even complementary to the rest of the material, they're just egotistical improvisations that ignore all of the rhythmic structures and just go off on one.

If that's what you like, then that's your taste - but any kid with a guitar could do that.

Fusionman wrote: The soloing should be viewed in an emotional veign not expressive.

    
And the difference between expressive and emotional is?

I understand - and love - expressive and emotional music. Andy Latimer is one of my favourite guitarists because he can play a single note and almost bring you to tears with the intensity of the emotion.

But waffly noodle all over a lovely laid-back number like "A Lotus on Irish Streams" is just sacrilege. It expresses nothing but "listen to how fast I can play all over this lovely chiled-out piece."

And that's just wrong.
    
    

...just noticed that somehow "Inner Mounting Flame" became "Birds of Fire" in an earlier post - I must've mis-typed and got the name stuck somehow... Just so's we're talking about the same album...

I haven't reviewed "Birds of Fire" yet, but it's just moved up my list   
    

Edited by Certif1ed - September 08 2006 at 04:04

Well I gave Birds of Fire 5 stars and Inner Mounting Flame gets 4.