| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
timothy leary 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
|
 Posted: April 22 2010 at 21:00 |
|
Steve Hackett, the song 12 from Neal morse`s album ?
|
 |
Ethos
Forum Groupie
Joined: April 01 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 51
|
Posted: April 22 2010 at 20:53 |
|
Guitar:
Steve Hackett - Firth of Fifth
Keyboard
Rick Wakeman-Awaken
|
|
"As sure as Eggs is Eggs."
|
|
progpositivity
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
|
Posted: April 22 2010 at 20:18 |
This song may be more 'crossover' than prog... but I've always *loved* Kerry Livgren's guitar solo on the Kansas song "Carry on My Wayward Son". The part where he steps down the scale with 4 staccato notes before speeding up... there is such a sense of economy, every note is just so *perfect*!
That is certainly a solo that I would want him to replicate "note for note" in concert (as he did when I saw him in the 70's. Great show! Steve Walsh was so full of energy. Jumping all over the stage like a mad mand. Playing keyboards while jumping all over the place!)
|
|
Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com
|
|
progpositivity
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
|
Posted: April 22 2010 at 12:13 |
The guitar solo from Comfortably Numb is very melodically uplifting - which creates an interesting sense of temporary 'relief' to the struggles depicted by the narrator in the song. It paints an emotional "sound picture" of the protaganist's memories of an elusive " fleeting glimpse out of the corner of his eye" of something good and bigger than him and all of his problems. Your emotional response speaks volumes about its effectiveness. Truly one of rock music's "great guitar solos".
As such, this is a guitar solo that simply *must* retain key melodic elements or else the song would be fundamentally changed. Fans would be so incredibly disappointed if DG just improvosed a totally different melody at that point of the song. (I know I would!). Sure DG can embellish a little phrasing or add an extra note here and there - but during the key melodic sequences, the fundamental motif absolutely *must* remain. Of course, he can extend the solo - even double or triple its length, with the 2nd and 3rd time around becoming an improv-fest if he wants... So sometimes one can get "the best of both worlds" after all!
Glad to hear you enjoyed Yes in concert recently - even if Jon couldn't make the trip. Opinions are destined to be "divided" with a Jon-clone singing. But it Jon can't make it, David sounds like "the next best thing"!
Funny thing... When I first heard David Benoit was going to fill in to sing on this tour I thought "the jazz pianist can *sing*?"! Wouldn't *that* have been wild if it had been the same "David Benoit"!!! 
Edited by progpositivity - April 22 2010 at 12:18
|
|
Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com
|
|
Icarium
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Status: Offline
Points: 34083
|
Posted: April 21 2010 at 19:07 |
|
the famous guitar solo on the PULSE DVD concert on Confortably Numb is one of the few times I sensed the presence of somthing godlike, and the HUGE disco ball opening upp and revealing a flower.
I saw Yes in December and they were amazing and the new singer was great
|
|
progpositivity
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
|
Posted: April 21 2010 at 14:52 |
It is interesting which sections of a song that band members feel they can take liberties with in concert and which ones they feel are so integral to the song's structure that they need to leave them "as is". They usually make wise choices IMO but not always.
Most rock and pop music performers (prog and non-prog alike) have to make these decisions when they take their music on the road. I once heard an interview in which Eddie Van Halen discussed his thought process for guitar solos on his songs in concert. There are certain sections that he felt he should not change, certain motifs he felt he should *not* abandon during a song's solos lest he change the character of the song and disappoint the fans in the process... Even so, there were other sections in which he felt much more free to improvise... and then there were situations where he felt obligated to work within the confines of the same motif, melody or riff as the solo on the album even while having freedom to improv with slight (and not so slight) variations.
I only bring EVH up because that interview so clearly illustrates what I'm describing. But the same thought process applies to proggers as well.
Can you think of any live performances (either in person or on "live" record/CD) that have - at least to some extent - disappointed you due to a change to a song?
On the flip side, have there been any performances (either in person or on "live" record/CD) that have disappointed you to some degree because they left everything virtually unchanged?
Which performances did you think captured a good combination of remaining true to critical themes, motifs and entire sections, while also expanding or changing other elements with improvisation or new arrangements for the live context?
If you are a performer or recording artist, have you ever gone through this type thought process before practicing for a live show? Or does it seem to "come naturally" to you?
I'll share two examples from my recent listening session to Close to the Edge from YesSongs. One good and one 'not so good'.
Not so good:
There is an organ run that Wakey adds toward the beginning of the song that is thankfully not on the album - or is mixed so low that I cannot hear it - in which the organ sounds more like something I might hear at a baseball game. A kind of indiscriminately cheesy type run that I might play if I were asked to just throw something in a song to fill up some space. To my ears, it is tragically "out of place" in a song of such cosmic proportions and aspirations. (This is - of course - a highly subjective judgment. You may consider that a grand addition to the song - but it struck me as sorely 'out of place'.)
Good:
In contradistinction, there is a highly composed passage toward the middle of the song where the bass and guitar introduce a new chord phrasing while Wakeman restates the dominant theme on keyboard at a slower tempo on top. Excellent counterpoint! A "high spot" of the song IMO and one I would have sorely missed had they skipped, replaced, or majorly changed during the concert performance. And they wisely left it the same as on the record. (If anyone is unsure where I'm talking about in the song, please let me know and I'll be glad to post the approximate running time of this section of the song for you. I'm at work right now without access to the song but I'll be glad to find it and post it.)
Edited by progpositivity - April 21 2010 at 14:58
|
|
Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: April 21 2010 at 11:11 |
 Dellinger wrote:
And what about early Pink Floyd? just about any song they chose to play live (alas, they released too few of those) sounds so much better, longer, more powerful, and even more atmospheric. |
Well, of course, as a Psych band the jamming was the center of their act.
Just seen a rare version of "Careful with that Axe Eugene" and it's impressive.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Dellinger
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: June 18 2009
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 12808
|
Posted: April 20 2010 at 22:16 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
^ yes and no-- you're correct that Genesis performances can be by-the-numbers as on Genesis Live (though Three Sides Live is rather good), but though I've never seen them, I suspect it would be quite enjoyable to witness the compositions, as written or not. You simply aren't experiencing the magic on a recording. That said, seeing Pink Floyd do the exact same show two nights in a row for the AMLoR tour was disappointing. It depends on the band members, the times, the current musical direction of the band, the very mood of that particular evening.
|
I believe there are bands that should improvise and as a fact do it great, I seen Wakeman and Tull several times and don't imagine a live show sounding as in an album. But a band like Genesis or Pink Floyd are different, they always sound almost exactly, and casually both are two bands that have a rich atmospheric sound. For me, the Three Sides Live performance of One for the Vine is disappointing, even when I like the In the Cage performance despite the differences, they made One for the Vine too light, too 80's, clearly for a new fanbase and without any mystery that is one of the main characteristics of the band and the song in particular. Remember that even that version was too strong for the USA album and they released Three Sides Live for this country with a fourth studio side with songs as Paperlate, because the new fans only knew the band after Hackett left . But it's only my opinion. Iván
|
I wouldn't agree Pink Floyd always sound exactly as in the album (nor Roger Waters Solo). Perhaps indeed many songs remain almost the same, for they are not good to be improvised upon, and perhaps they do not change the other songs as much as other artists might, but I have heard some songs I really like much better live from Pink Floyd. Specially, those songs that end with a guitar solo, Gilmour usually makes them a lot better (for my taste) live, he makes them longer (at least a bit) and more powerful... that's one of the reasons I don't really like the studio version from Comfortably Numb so much any longer, the solo ends all too soon (though the atmosphere is certainly better on the original recording). Waters made MAJOR changes to Set the Controls to the Heart of the Sun, and to Welcome to the Machine on the In the Flesh live album (though I wouldn't say I like those versions better, they are good anyway). And what about early Pink Floyd? just about any song they chose to play live (alas, they released too few of those) sounds so much better, longer, more powerful, and even more atmospheric.
|
|
progpositivity
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
|
Posted: April 20 2010 at 16:02 |
Two listens to the studio version of Close to the Edge last night...
Question #1: "I'm my 'mind's ear' can I envision *erasing* Wakey's solo and then replacing it with an equally virtuosic keyboard solo? When I do so, would the song emerge with very little damage to its overall character?"
Yes. As far as the organ solo toward the end of the song, I can very much envision *erasing* Wakey's solo and replacing it with a jammin' solo by any number of musicians playing a flashy solo and I think the song would emerge with very little damage to its overall character. (Vangelis probably wouldn't do the trick - but Ryo Okumoto would... That is clearly a showcase organ jam moment requiring a particular passion and insensity much more than any particular phrasing or melody.)
Question #2: "How integrated into the composition as a whole are the keyboard parts in CttE IMO? How critical is interplay in the arrangement of the piece overall?
I walked away from those listens more impressed with Wakeman than ever. I'll go as far as to say the keyboard solo at the end of the song is the least impressive aspect of Wakeman's contribution to this song overall. It isn't that the solo is crappy. It is that his touch of genius is all over CttE - in subtle (and not so subtle) ways throughout. I think I'll have much to say on this later when I can reference specific places in CttE where the keys are very integrated into the entirety of the composition.
One final "controversial comment" I can add right now... I've always felt that Steve Howe - as great as he was (and is!) in concert - got himself in just a tad "over his head" during some of the live performances of the YesSongs era. He more than "made up" for any amount of imprecision with sheer energy and enthusiasm - creating a concert experience and a YesSongs album experience that is not only vital and exciting - but is also unique from the studio album experience - capable of standing on its own. But it was an action born more of necessity than from grand design IMO.
Sometimes hearing Howe on YesSongs is a little like watching a high wire act. There is a certain amount of tension involved... Can he pull this off? When he does, I exclaim "YES! He did!" I can almost feel the sweat dripping from his brow....
What Howe (and all of Yes to some extent) did on CttE was truly gutsy. The parts he contributed through multiple takes and dubs in the studio were so ambitious that it stretched him to his performance peak. Indeed, many of the band members had to practice quite diligently to recreate workable approximations of the masterpieces they created in the studio within a 'live' context.
And so I'll come out and "say it"... From a strictly compositional standpoint, I do *not* think Howe quite "pulled off" the first frenetic guitar section of CttE successfully on YesSongs. I won't go as far as to allege that he "ruined the song" of course. He did manage to recreate some measure of the mood and feeling from the studio version. And he was clearly cognizent of the importance of remaining true to the key guitar melodic theme that emerges from the chaotic opening section. I think he does an excellent part of integrating that into the guitar section - so all is not lost by any means... Squire's bass part *is* spot on and is 100% "mission critical" to the opening section IMO.
Thoughts?
Edited by progpositivity - April 20 2010 at 23:46
|
|
Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: April 19 2010 at 22:51 |
Atavachron wrote:
true, though I have some recordings of Floyd in '75 touring WYWH and they had a rougher, more spontaneous approach than later..more like a rock band doing art than an art band doing, or trying to do, rock.
|
You know?
I always believed that this was caused for the historical weight of Dark Side, they didn't had the balls to touch it because everybody had a copy and all the fans wanted to listen it as it sounded in their homes.
WYWH gave them more freedom, it's more a rock album, even the Gilmour solo in Shine on You Crazy Diamond calls for jamming.
But also the eternal conflict between Dave and Roger was a cause for preasure, none of them would had allowed the other to change the tracks too much.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - April 19 2010 at 22:52
|
|
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65587
|
Posted: April 19 2010 at 22:38 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
I believe there are bands that should improvise and as a fact do it great, I seen Wakeman and Tull several times and don't imagine a live show sounding as in an album.
But a band like Genesis or Pink Floyd are different, they always sound almost exactly, and casually both are two bands that have a rich atmospheric sound.
|
true, though I have some recordings of Floyd in '75 touring WYWH and they had a rougher, more spontaneous approach than later..more like a rock band doing art than an art band doing, or trying to do, rock.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: April 19 2010 at 22:18 |
Atavachron wrote:
^ yes and no-- you're correct that Genesis performances can be by-the-numbers as on Genesis Live (though Three Sides Live is rather good), but though I've never seen them, I suspect it would be quite enjoyable to witness the compositions, as written or not. You simply aren't experiencing the magic on a recording. That said, seeing Pink Floyd do the exact same show two nights in a row for the AMLoR tour was disappointing. It depends on the band members, the times, the current musical direction of the band, the very mood of that particular evening.
|
I believe there are bands that should improvise and as a fact do it great, I seen Wakeman and Tull several times and don't imagine a live show sounding as in an album.
But a band like Genesis or Pink Floyd are different, they always sound almost exactly, and casually both are two bands that have a rich atmospheric sound.
For me, the Three Sides Live performance of One for the Vine is disappointing, even when I like the In the Cage performance despite the differences, they made One for the Vine too light, too 80's, clearly for a new fanbase and without any mystery that is one of the main characteristics of the band and the song in particular.
Remember that even that version was too strong for the USA album and they released Three Sides Live for this country with a fourth studio side with songs as Paperlate, because the new fans only knew the band after Hackett left . But it's only my opinion.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - April 19 2010 at 22:20
|
|
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65587
|
Posted: April 19 2010 at 21:43 |
|
^ yes and no-- you're correct that Genesis performances can be by-the-numbers as on Genesis Live (though Three Sides Live is rather good), but though I've never seen them, I suspect it would be quite enjoyable to witness the compositions, as written or not. You simply aren't experiencing the magic on a recording. That said, seeing Pink Floyd do the exact same show two nights in a row for the AMLoR tour was disappointing. It depends on the band members, the times, the current musical direction of the band, the very mood of that particular evening.
|
|
Dellinger
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: June 18 2009
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 12808
|
Posted: April 19 2010 at 21:30 |
|
Well, I always like better the live songs when they add something to the song, making impovisations or new arrangements, otherwise, what's the point in having a live album if it's going to be played exactly the same way as the studio album. And often enough I like better the live versions. And I guess it is a point in favor of the artist to be able to make suitable changes to the songs (and make them right) when playing live, than having to play just as it was written on the studio album because otherwise it won't work. I still have to hear more Genesis Live albums to express my opinion on this point for Genesis in particular.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: April 19 2010 at 20:56 |
progpositivity wrote:
"a good example is Close to the Edge, the solo by Wakeman is an ornate, you can add it or take it and wouldn't affect the central idea of the music, while you touch a note in Banks music and you ruin the song."
Ivan, could you alert me to the location in the song's running time where this solo falls? For example, about 4 minutes into the song... or at about the 8 minute mark, etc.? I'm at work right now, but when I get home, I'm very interested in listening to this particular solo to see to what extent I can hear and/or agree with what you are talking about.
|
I wasn't talking about any special onel, as a fact I'm talking about any Banks performance in general..
But if you want one ruined, listen Three Sides Live (British version with the old songs) the real song is One For the Vine (Even when due to a mistake of the CD recording appears at the 20 seconds of Fountain of Salmacis)
Tony changes the approach, uses electric piano and instead of organ a cheap synth that sounds like a Casiotrone, it's like a battle of swords in Star Wars, but even that may sound as a joke,
The real problem is when Stuermer ruins the continuity of the guitar (He's a hell of a guitar player, but he can't work Steve's atmospheres), incredibly the problem is that you listen Stuermer too clear when the song requires a more subtle guitar and Phil (Or Chester not sure), makes a killer drum solo, but too complex for the song, if they had left it as in W&W it would had been great.
As a fact is pretty hard to find a bad stage performance in Genesis (Except for technical reasons), because they usually stayed incredibly close to the original version, probably because they knew that a mistake would ruin it all and that there was little place for improvisation, so they played it safe.
Check it., it's interesting.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - April 19 2010 at 21:07
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: April 19 2010 at 20:38 |
progpositivity wrote:
Let's not impugn anyone's integrity over what appears to be just an honest mistake.
|
No my new friend, it's not a mistake-
I mentioned Relayer, because it's the exact same case as in Going for the One, and even more radical, because we are talking about a man who replaced the guy who had worked for years with them, we are talking about a totally different keyboardist than Wakeman, but still the album worked incredibly well, as a fact is ,a reinforcement for my point, because Moraz, with a radically different style than Wakeman, and without even having an approach with Yes, came, took the previous recordings, added a couple arrangements and released the best Yes album ever...
This (I believe) makes my point, that with a great replacement, no matter who is, Yes will still work, something I don't believe would be so easy in the case of early Genesis.
Iván
|
|
|
|
American Khatru
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 28 2009
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 732
|
Posted: April 19 2010 at 19:57 |
progpositivity wrote:
... Good discussion points everyone! Keep the ideas coming! |
"Keep that popcorn chicken coming Colonel."
|
 Why must my spell-checker continually underline the word "prog"?
|
|
progpositivity
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
|
Posted: April 19 2010 at 19:53 |
Let's not impugn anyone's integrity over what appears to be just an honest mistake.
Ghost wrote "Howe and Wakey practically invented that tight interplay between keyboards and guitar, as careful listening of Fragile and CTTE (and GFTO) should convince you."
and Ivan wrote "Relayer and GFTO tight?...Funny,"
I'm much more interested in exploring the following idea (which I think Ivan is saying in the "bigger picture").
"a good example is Close to the Edge, the solo by Wakeman is an ornate, you can add it or take it and wouldn't affect the central idea of the music, while you touch a note in Banks music and you ruin the song."
Ivan, could you alert me to the location in the song's running time where this solo falls? For example, about 4 minutes into the song... or at about the 8 minute mark, etc.? I'm at work right now, but when I get home, I'm very interested in listening to this particular solo to see to what extent I can hear and/or agree with what you are talking about.
I'll be asking myself "I'm my 'mind's ear' can I envision *erasing* Wakey's solo and then replacing it with an equally virtuosic keyboard solo? When I do so, would the song emerge with very little damage to its overall character?"
Indeed, I may be able to envision this - as long as the solo is performed by someone with a lot of pizazz (like Patrick Moraz) as opposed to someone great yet more sedate like Vangelis.
My next question will be to ask myself about the keyboard parts *overall*. "How integrated into the composition as a whole are they IMO? How critical is interplay in the arrangement of the piece overall?
Can I envision someone else (Patrick Moraz maybe?) playing keys of his own style all over the entire song?"
And then the 'litmus test' question... "With this imaginary change, would the entire piece 'Close to the Edge' emerge with very little damage to its overall character IMO?"
I really don't know what the answer will be to these questions. I'll just have to go through the *fun* of listening to CttE with brand new ears!
For this, I thank you Ivan. Because, whether I end up totally agreeing with you, totally disagreeing with you, or any gradation inbetween, not only are you sharing your perspective with me as I embark on a journey to discover the greatness of classic Genesis... You are also helping to make a time-honored classic Yes album to come alive in a new and interesting way for me!
Ghosts - thanks for your input as well. It is - of course! - highly valued! I invite you to give CttE another listen. Of course, this is only your mission if you so choose to accept it and this post will self destruct in 30 seconds! 
Let's see what we discover. Your result may be different than mine and different from Ivan's as well. That is one of the cool things about art!
Either way, I'm sure Yes' reputation will survive this scandalous allegation!
Edited by progpositivity - April 19 2010 at 20:05
|
|
Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: April 19 2010 at 18:25 |
ghost_of_morphy wrote:
I'm just going to respond to this one point, because everyone can listen to the albums and make up their own mind.
However I have to point out Ivan's sleazy dishonesty (or alternatively his extreme sloppiness.) Most of his refutation of point 3 is a slamming of Relayer. I invite everyone to look at my original point quoted above to see if I mentioned Relayer. I also invite honest and disinterested parties to join me in pointing out to Ivan that it was Moraz who played on Relayer, not Wakeman, and therefore Relayer has no reason to be included in this point. |
Please, call me whatever you want, but never dishonest,, I have never insulted, much less give you that right because you don't know me....Calling someone dishonest is an offence, and I'm not willing to accept it
I know that Moraz played on Relayer, but I believe the keyboardists of this bands could be easily changed between without any problem (Of course you need a good musician), As a fact Relayer sounds tighter to me than any previous Yes album.
Now, Of course I mention Relayer after you mention GFTO because the situation is exactly the same in both albums despite the musicians are different
- They recorded part of it with a first keyboardist
- A new one came when unexpected (Well I believe I read that Wakeman's return in GFTO was an agreement between A&M and Atlantic because Wakeman in Yes would be a boost to Rick's sales while Yes fans wanted the caped keyboardist back)
- They were able to release an album because the new members were secondary, he could had been almost anyone and still the album work.
That's my whole point, Yes is mainly based in the skills and virtuosic atributes of their members more than in a team work and close interplay.
Now if you want to make a drama, insult me and focus in the the well known fact that Moraz played in Relayer (You didn't said it, I said it..Are you happy?) and still ask people to help you, it's your problem,. but please control your language, I won't accept any word about my honesty, it took me decades to be who I am, and nobody who knows me by a post has a right to place doubts on it.
Iván.
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - April 19 2010 at 19:07
|
|
|
|
progpositivity
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
|
Posted: April 19 2010 at 14:32 |
Ghost, it appears as though Ivan thought you cited Relayer in your examples of Yes albums with pre-planned tight keyboard guitar interplay, which is not the case.
But I think his larger point is that he feels one can basically *erase* the guitarist's (or keyboardist's) parts on most Yes songs, and then overdub a totally different - yet equally virtuosic - part in it's place and the song would not really suffer as a result. The fact that Moraz could come in so late in the process and put his unique virtuosic solo parts on the Relayer album with so much success is provided as evidence that a Yes song can work that way - with extra parts layered on after the fact instead of pre-planned for a synergistic and cohesive "whole". I think he is also saying that if one did that same thing to a Genesis song that was "in process", it would totally ruin the song.
If find this perspective thought provoking, even if I'm not sure I 100% agree with it. I must concede that I intuitively feel there is surely an element of validity. It is worth breaking down into 2 parts.
1) Could someone step in and change the guitar parts on a Genesis song and the song not be totally ruined in the process? Would it be totally impossible for Genesis to have worked that way? This question may be impossible to answer. No doubt, removing an Ant Phillips guitar part and replacing it with an indiscriminately showy performance could wreck the vibe. (But I would suggest that Patrick Moraz didn't work that way either. He didn't just indiscrimiately overdub on top of Relayer. He took the greater whole into account - even if some of his parts were added "after the fact" did he not? Ah, but I'm already getting into the Yes question (#2 below). I'd better defer that line of thought until later on...
The closest glimpse we may ever have of seeing whether classic Genesis could "work that way" or not might be found with a closer inspection of Nursery Cryme. How many of the guitar parts to this album might have been already written by Ant? Then how many of them might Steve Hackett have made an adjustment here or a change there? To whatever extent Steve's guitar parts differ from what Ant would have played, it could be argued that the arrangements *did* change but that the songs were *not* quite ruined as a result. Perhaps a listen to Ant's "F sharp" contrasted with listenings to "The Musical Box" could give us some clues? Just a thought....
On to the 2nd question. Could we really remove a full guitar part from most Yes songs or a full keyboard part from most Yes songs and insert an equally vituosic performance by another guitarist or keyboard player without dramatically changing or diminishing the songs character in so doing?
In the early "classic" years Yes would evidently jam for hours on end until they found parts that were both complex and inter-locking (even recording them on tape so they could capture and then strive to recreate the best parts later). I think this is how they came up with some of those mind blowing simultaneously virtuosic performances with complex interplay in the arrangements. At other times, however, they shined the spotlight clearly on an individual player for a solo. Interplay in the arrangement was *not* the focus at those times. I suspect a totally different - yet equally impressive solo - could "fit in" without damaging the song in these contexts.
Let's focus on Yes' universally revered album "Close to the Edge" Which song(s) could one perform this type of "cut and paste" surgery on successfully? I promise to listen to the song as objectively as possible to see to what extent I agree or disagree.
Good discussion points everyone! Keep the ideas coming!
Edited by progpositivity - April 19 2010 at 16:56
|
|
Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
ProgPos Blog - Genesis Studio LP Tour
