Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: September 03 2005
Location: Olympus Mons
Status: Offline
Points: 15916
Posted: November 20 2014 at 23:56
I truly don't know what Tony P used on the opening cut of Felona........ I originally thought it was a 'tron, then some distorted Logan string-synth, or perhaps it's a Hammond through some effects.........but I don't think it's a synth. He does use some way-out Moog textures though..... I listened to IQ 's Nomzamo album last night, and thought the opening track No Love Lost had a grandiose synth intro.......very nicely done......
I didn't think there were any synths on that Aphrodites Child album?
Of course there are synth riffs at 666, as you can hear that in the sample above from 1:40 to 2:00;
sadly that 666 wasalready recorded in 1970 but then the album was waiting for two years to be released...
The sleevenotes don't help with this unfortunately as it states next to Vangelis -Organ, Piano, Flute, Percussion,Vibes + Various Others , Vocal Backing but no mention of synths
My understanding was that Vangelis did not use synths until 1975 and the album Heaven and Hell ( edit used also on Ignacio from the same year)
However I had a look at the excellent elsewhere site and it has some very interesting comments about the L'Apocalypse Des Animaux album from 1973:
A wonderful combination of acoustic and early electronic instruments makes this album sound far ahead of its time. Acoustic and electric guitars, electric pianos, rotary effects and stretched electronic pads from modified organs and other electronic keyboards, it's all there. Vangelis experimented with anything he could get his hands on, thus creating dreamy landscapes that others could only produce years later when synthesizers started to become a common good. Perhaps the first "new age" sound ever?
Joined: July 01 2004
Location: CA
Status: Online
Points: 17163
Posted: November 21 2014 at 03:30
richardh wrote:
However I had a look at the excellent elsewhere site and it has some very interesting comments about the L'Apocalypse Des Animaux album from 1973:
A wonderful combination of acoustic and early electronic instruments makes this album sound far ahead of its time. Acoustic and electric guitars, electric pianos, rotary effects and stretched electronic pads from modified organs and other electronic keyboards, it's all there. Vangelis experimented with anything he could get his hands on, thus creating dreamy landscapes that others could only produce years later when synthesizers started to become a common good. Perhaps the first "new age" sound ever?
That is a beautiful album. Very surreal, wistful, evocative, quintessentially "Vangelis." It definitely sounds ahead of its time.
Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 28041
Posted: November 21 2014 at 03:33
verslibre wrote:
richardh wrote:
However I had a look at the excellent elsewhere site and it has some very interesting comments about the L'Apocalypse Des Animaux album from 1973:
A wonderful combination of acoustic and early electronic instruments makes this album sound far ahead of its time. Acoustic and electric guitars, electric pianos, rotary effects and stretched electronic pads from modified organs and other electronic keyboards, it's all there. Vangelis experimented with anything he could get his hands on, thus creating dreamy landscapes that others could only produce years later when synthesizers started to become a common good. Perhaps the first "new age" sound ever?
That is a beautiful album. Very surreal, wistful, evocative, quintessentially "Vangelis." It definitely sounds ahead of its time.
agreed
and yet we still wonder why Vangelis was moved out 'Progressive Electronic'
I didn't think there were any synths on that Aphrodites Child album?
Of course there are synth riffs at 666, as you can hear that in the sample above from 1:40 to 2:00;
sadly that 666 wasalready recorded in 1970 but then the album was waiting for two years to be released...
The sleevenotes don't help with this unfortunately as it states next to Vangelis -Organ, Piano, Flute, Percussion,Vibes + Various Others , Vocal Backing but no mention of synths
My understanding was that Vangelis did not use synths until 1975 and the album Heaven and Hell ( edit used also on Ignacio from the same year)
However I had a look at the excellent elsewhere site and it has some very interesting comments about the L'Apocalypse Des Animaux album from 1973:
A wonderful combination of acoustic and early electronic instruments makes this album sound far ahead of its time. Acoustic and electric guitars, electric pianos, rotary effects and stretched electronic pads from modified organs and other electronic keyboards, it's all there. Vangelis experimented with anything he could get his hands on, thus creating dreamy landscapes that others could only produce years later when synthesizers started to become a common good. Perhaps the first "new age" sound ever?
Could it bedoneoverdub at 666?What do you think?I mean, the materialwasalreadyrecorded in1970.But,666the album wasreleasedin1972; so maybe those slightly synth riffs were added just before666 was finallyreleased.
Or synth wasn'tmentionedinsleevenotes justbecausethesynthriffswere veryslightly presentedon the album? Personally, I do not see any other reasonthat synth was not mentioned in sleevenotes, due to the fact that early synth riffs arethere, at the album, and we can hear them very clear in that less than 3-minute long but stunningprogressive rockgem what The Capture of the Beastfrom666reallyis.
Btw, regarding the link to Elsewhere site that you posted above, at the same site there's an interview with Vangelis that is done in 1976 for Oor mag and in my opinion this is the most interesting part of article:
The use of percussion instruments in this sort of lyrical and symphonic music is relatively unique. Vangelis: "That’s
correct. Although what’s on Heaven and Hell might sound quite complex
at times, my basic contributions on the keyboards, not in any way
bounded by strict rules, are usually as simple as one plus one equals
two. In the domain of the more or less symphonic sound-progressions,
brought about in the spirit of the moment, the contributions of the
percussion instruments bring power, energy and positive vibrations that
are strictly necessary to avoid making the total result a tedious
ego-trip." The performance of "Heaven and Hell" at the Royal Albert
Hall was a real tour de force and a strange experience which turned into
a complete triumph for Vangelis. Assisted by no less than two sidemen,
among whom renowned conductor David Bedford(5),
Vangelis played a large number of keyboard and percussion instruments.
Also making their appearance was an African (percussion-) group. Some 20
girls of London’s Queens College took place behind an equal number of
‘Timpanis’ (a sort of drums). Roughly the same number of ladies in red
dresses stood surrounding two enormous drums which they played in a sort
of ritual round dance. The 40-odd strong English Chamber Choir plus
Greek singer Vana Veroutis completed the cast. Vana didn’t actually use
any words when singing. It was rather a case of her emitting sounds.
Just like on the last record by the way. Does Vangelis not believe in
the power of speech? "The voice (and not the word) is the expression
of the body. If you can only say something with words, it cannot really
be sincere. Words are insensitive. Outbursts of formalism. The sounds
made by the voice are sincere expressions of feelings or emotions
circulating within the body." As a musician Vangelis is self-taught.
Which you can hardly imagine when you see him in action. He’s in the
possession of a fluid, sensitive style on the keyboard instruments. When
he plays them he shows a technical craft normally only encountered
among classical musicians. The list of keyboard instruments he plays is
equally impressive. A Bosendorfer grand piano, a Hohner Clavinet, a
Hammond B3 organ, a Fender 88 electric piano, an Elka Rhapsody ‘String’
Machine, a Tornado ‘reed’ organ, a Farfisa organ, an ARP Prosolist, a
Crumar compact piano, two Mini-Korg 700, two Roland synthesizers, two
Clavioli and two stylophone 350S mini-synthesizers. And that’s enough of
that.
How does Vangelis view the musical changes he has gone through since Aphrodite’s Child and his solo-LP "Earth"? Vangelis: "Three
years ago already I could have made a record like Heaven and Hell.
Technically speaking I was ready for it. Why I didn’t do it back then?
Because the pop-market wasn’t ready for it at that moment. Some of the
recordings I made 10 years ago are musically and technically speaking
more complex than Heaven and Hell. The problem you have to deal with as a
musician and creator of music is that you have to fight against a
market, a record-company and a world for brainwashed people. As creator
or performer of pop-music in 1976 you very quickly become the victim of
the economic powers of this world who have meanwhile also taken over
pop-music. In the sixties the creation and performance of pop-music was a
form of (social) protest. Now the creation and performance of pop-music
have become big business and most pop-musicians are photo-models in
disguise who behave like mindless marionettes in the service of the
public and the record-companies.
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17516
Posted: November 21 2014 at 10:12
Hi,
I never considered a "solo" as anything but a part of the music ... it doesn't mean anything if all it is, is a solo, and then you can call it "jazz" music.
It's really sad to see music reduced to nothing, and just notes ... and how many folks are not capable/willing to listen to it past the notes, or the "solo".
Why even bother calling it "progressive', if your thinking and attitude is nowhere near it? You wouldn't recognize a piece that was not a solo anywhere!
Edited by moshkito - November 21 2014 at 10:12
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Joined: December 20 2010
Location: Tomorrowland
Status: Online
Points: 11631
Posted: November 21 2014 at 10:36
moshkito wrote:
Hi,
Howdy,
You are a very complex person. Sometimes your posts are among the most thought provoking and interesting stuff I've read on these boards while other times you write just about the dumbest things I've read on the whole internet.
You may not know this but many of the musicians I know you genuinely treasure occationally use terms such as (favorite) soloparts and extended codas when talking about different parts of a compostition.
How about trying to accept that there's valid and honest approaches to both loving and writing about music that come across different than yours?
Edited by Saperlipopette! - November 21 2014 at 13:27
I didn't think there were any synths on that Aphrodites Child album?
Of course there are synth riffs at 666, as you can hear that in the sample above from 1:40 to 2:00;
sadly that 666 wasalready recorded in 1970 but then the album was waiting for two years to be released...
The sleevenotes don't help with this unfortunately as it states next to Vangelis -Organ, Piano, Flute, Percussion,Vibes + Various Others , Vocal Backing but no mention of synths
My understanding was that Vangelis did not use synths until 1975 and the album Heaven and Hell ( edit used also on Ignacio from the same year)
However I had a look at the excellent elsewhere site and it has some very interesting comments about the L'Apocalypse Des Animaux album from 1973:
A wonderful combination of acoustic and early electronic instruments makes this album sound far ahead of its time. Acoustic and electric guitars, electric pianos, rotary effects and stretched electronic pads from modified organs and other electronic keyboards, it's all there. Vangelis experimented with anything he could get his hands on, thus creating dreamy landscapes that others could only produce years later when synthesizers started to become a common good. Perhaps the first "new age" sound ever?
Could it bedoneoverdub at 666?What do you think?I mean, the materialwasalreadyrecorded in1970.But,666the album wasreleasedin1972; so maybe those slightly synth riffs were added just before666 was finallyreleased.
Or synth wasn'tmentionedinsleevenotes justbecausethesynthriffswere veryslightly presentedon the album? Personally, I do not see any other reasonthat synth was not mentioned in sleevenotes, due to the fact that early synth riffs arethere, at the album, and we can hear them very clear in that less than 3-minute long but stunningprogressive rockgem what The Capture of the Beastfrom666reallyis.
Btw, regarding the link to Elsewhere site that you posted above, at the same site there's an interview with Vangelis that is done in 1976 for Oor mag and in my opinion this is the most interesting part of article:
The use of percussion instruments in this sort of lyrical and symphonic music is relatively unique. Vangelis: "That’s
correct. Although what’s on Heaven and Hell might sound quite complex
at times, my basic contributions on the keyboards, not in any way
bounded by strict rules, are usually as simple as one plus one equals
two. In the domain of the more or less symphonic sound-progressions,
brought about in the spirit of the moment, the contributions of the
percussion instruments bring power, energy and positive vibrations that
are strictly necessary to avoid making the total result a tedious
ego-trip." The performance of "Heaven and Hell" at the Royal Albert
Hall was a real tour de force and a strange experience which turned into
a complete triumph for Vangelis. Assisted by no less than two sidemen,
among whom renowned conductor David Bedford(5),
Vangelis played a large number of keyboard and percussion instruments.
Also making their appearance was an African (percussion-) group. Some 20
girls of London’s Queens College took place behind an equal number of
‘Timpanis’ (a sort of drums). Roughly the same number of ladies in red
dresses stood surrounding two enormous drums which they played in a sort
of ritual round dance. The 40-odd strong English Chamber Choir plus
Greek singer Vana Veroutis completed the cast. Vana didn’t actually use
any words when singing. It was rather a case of her emitting sounds.
Just like on the last record by the way. Does Vangelis not believe in
the power of speech? "The voice (and not the word) is the expression
of the body. If you can only say something with words, it cannot really
be sincere. Words are insensitive. Outbursts of formalism. The sounds
made by the voice are sincere expressions of feelings or emotions
circulating within the body." As a musician Vangelis is self-taught.
Which you can hardly imagine when you see him in action. He’s in the
possession of a fluid, sensitive style on the keyboard instruments. When
he plays them he shows a technical craft normally only encountered
among classical musicians. The list of keyboard instruments he plays is
equally impressive. A Bosendorfer grand piano, a Hohner Clavinet, a
Hammond B3 organ, a Fender 88 electric piano, an Elka Rhapsody ‘String’
Machine, a Tornado ‘reed’ organ, a Farfisa organ, an ARP Prosolist, a
Crumar compact piano, two Mini-Korg 700, two Roland synthesizers, two
Clavioli and two stylophone 350S mini-synthesizers. And that’s enough of
that.
How does Vangelis view the musical changes he has gone through since Aphrodite’s Child and his solo-LP "Earth"? Vangelis: "Three
years ago already I could have made a record like Heaven and Hell.
Technically speaking I was ready for it. Why I didn’t do it back then?
Because the pop-market wasn’t ready for it at that moment. Some of the
recordings I made 10 years ago are musically and technically speaking
more complex than Heaven and Hell. The problem you have to deal with as a
musician and creator of music is that you have to fight against a
market, a record-company and a world for brainwashed people. As creator
or performer of pop-music in 1976 you very quickly become the victim of
the economic powers of this world who have meanwhile also taken over
pop-music. In the sixties the creation and performance of pop-music was a
form of (social) protest. Now the creation and performance of pop-music
have become big business and most pop-musicians are photo-models in
disguise who behave like mindless marionettes in the service of the
public and the record-companies.
Vangelis was understandably suspicious of record companies even in 1976 and with good justification. One likes to believe in the freedom of music but endless compromises....
I didn't think there were any synths on that Aphrodites Child album?
Of course there are synth riffs at 666, as you can hear that in the sample above from 1:40 to 2:00;
sadly that 666 wasalready recorded in 1970 but then the album was waiting for two years to be released...
The sleevenotes don't help with this unfortunately as it states next to Vangelis -Organ, Piano, Flute, Percussion,Vibes + Various Others , Vocal Backing but no mention of synths
My understanding was that Vangelis did not use synths until 1975 and the album Heaven and Hell ( edit used also on Ignacio from the same year)
However I had a look at the excellent elsewhere site and it has some very interesting comments about the L'Apocalypse Des Animaux album from 1973:
A wonderful combination of acoustic and early electronic instruments makes this album sound far ahead of its time. Acoustic and electric guitars, electric pianos, rotary effects and stretched electronic pads from modified organs and other electronic keyboards, it's all there. Vangelis experimented with anything he could get his hands on, thus creating dreamy landscapes that others could only produce years later when synthesizers started to become a common good. Perhaps the first "new age" sound ever?
Could it bedoneoverdub at 666?What do you think?I mean, the materialwasalreadyrecorded in1970.But,666the album wasreleasedin1972; so maybe those slightly synth riffs were added just before666 was finallyreleased.
Or synth wasn'tmentionedinsleevenotes justbecausethesynthriffswere veryslightly presentedon the album? Personally, I do not see any other reasonthat synth was not mentioned in sleevenotes, due to the fact that early synth riffs arethere, at the album, and we can hear them very clear in that less than 3-minute long but stunningprogressive rockgem what The Capture of the Beastfrom666reallyis.
Btw, regarding the link to Elsewhere site that you posted above, at the same site there's an interview with Vangelis that is done in 1976 for Oor mag and in my opinion this is the most interesting part of article:
The use of percussion instruments in this sort of lyrical and symphonic music is relatively unique. Vangelis: "That’s
correct. Although what’s on Heaven and Hell might sound quite complex
at times, my basic contributions on the keyboards, not in any way
bounded by strict rules, are usually as simple as one plus one equals
two. In the domain of the more or less symphonic sound-progressions,
brought about in the spirit of the moment, the contributions of the
percussion instruments bring power, energy and positive vibrations that
are strictly necessary to avoid making the total result a tedious
ego-trip." The performance of "Heaven and Hell" at the Royal Albert
Hall was a real tour de force and a strange experience which turned into
a complete triumph for Vangelis. Assisted by no less than two sidemen,
among whom renowned conductor David Bedford(5),
Vangelis played a large number of keyboard and percussion instruments.
Also making their appearance was an African (percussion-) group. Some 20
girls of London’s Queens College took place behind an equal number of
‘Timpanis’ (a sort of drums). Roughly the same number of ladies in red
dresses stood surrounding two enormous drums which they played in a sort
of ritual round dance. The 40-odd strong English Chamber Choir plus
Greek singer Vana Veroutis completed the cast. Vana didn’t actually use
any words when singing. It was rather a case of her emitting sounds.
Just like on the last record by the way. Does Vangelis not believe in
the power of speech? "The voice (and not the word) is the expression
of the body. If you can only say something with words, it cannot really
be sincere. Words are insensitive. Outbursts of formalism. The sounds
made by the voice are sincere expressions of feelings or emotions
circulating within the body." As a musician Vangelis is self-taught.
Which you can hardly imagine when you see him in action. He’s in the
possession of a fluid, sensitive style on the keyboard instruments. When
he plays them he shows a technical craft normally only encountered
among classical musicians. The list of keyboard instruments he plays is
equally impressive. A Bosendorfer grand piano, a Hohner Clavinet, a
Hammond B3 organ, a Fender 88 electric piano, an Elka Rhapsody ‘String’
Machine, a Tornado ‘reed’ organ, a Farfisa organ, an ARP Prosolist, a
Crumar compact piano, two Mini-Korg 700, two Roland synthesizers, two
Clavioli and two stylophone 350S mini-synthesizers. And that’s enough of
that.
How does Vangelis view the musical changes he has gone through since Aphrodite’s Child and his solo-LP "Earth"? Vangelis: "Three
years ago already I could have made a record like Heaven and Hell.
Technically speaking I was ready for it. Why I didn’t do it back then?
Because the pop-market wasn’t ready for it at that moment. Some of the
recordings I made 10 years ago are musically and technically speaking
more complex than Heaven and Hell. The problem you have to deal with as a
musician and creator of music is that you have to fight against a
market, a record-company and a world for brainwashed people. As creator
or performer of pop-music in 1976 you very quickly become the victim of
the economic powers of this world who have meanwhile also taken over
pop-music. In the sixties the creation and performance of pop-music was a
form of (social) protest. Now the creation and performance of pop-music
have become big business and most pop-musicians are photo-models in
disguise who behave like mindless marionettes in the service of the
public and the record-companies.
Vangelis was understandably suspicious of record companies even in 1976 and with good justification. One likes to believe in the freedom of music but endless compromises....
This is larger than a newspaper article, yet got replies thus might be interesting. I don't know yet as just the length of it is overwhelming to read. On a better day maybe, will save this in favorites tab just in case.
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17516
Posted: November 22 2014 at 12:43
Saperlipopette! wrote:
moshkito wrote:
Hi,
Howdy,
You are a very complex person. Sometimes your posts are among the most thought provoking and interesting stuff I've read on these boards while other times you write just about the dumbest things I've read on the whole internet.
You may not know this but many of the musicians I know you genuinely treasure occationally use terms such as (favorite) soloparts and extended codas when talking about different parts of a compostition.
How about trying to accept that there's valid and honest approaches to both loving and writing about music that come across different than yours?
Sadly, you are confusing "popular music" with other things out there. Calling the guitar style in Egberto Gismonti a "solo" is stupid, and bad music knowledge. Calling Keith Jarrett's majority of work a "solo" means the rest is worthless.
Pop music insists on "solos" to show its heroic side and its star appeal ... other music, does not. Calling Jon McLaughlin's work, just "solos" is like saying ... you're not listening.
It's all I'm saying ... not everyone plays "solos" ... and Daevid Allen laughed hard the one time I joked about a solo in Gong. He joked that there were too many individuals to bother with a solo ... but now everyone calls some of those bits "solos" ... and he goes ... "let them! But it won't stop me!"
Even classical music had problems with "solo" stuff ... they created concerti specially for an instrument instead and there is no solo in the piece otherwise. And opera created an "aria" to separate that part from the rest of the music ... the only stuff that does solos is pop music ... the least complicated music design there is! Rock and jazz created the solo to make it look like the music is better and the player is more important! WOW .... kiss me!
But Mike Oldfield might call it a solo ... but Vangelis doesn't!
Not everyone is the same!
Edited by moshkito - November 22 2014 at 12:43
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
But none of us are doing that Pedro Where do you get these things from? I would never dream of equating either Keith Jarret or Egberto Gismonti's work to a solo or solos, but there are solos to find in both of these artist's oevre....just like there is in Yes, Amon Düül ll, Can etc etc....
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
Joined: December 20 2010
Location: Tomorrowland
Status: Online
Points: 11631
Posted: November 23 2014 at 10:57
moshkito wrote:
Sadly, you are confusing "popular music" with other things out there. Calling the guitar style in Egberto Gismonti a "solo" is stupid, and bad music knowledge. Calling Keith Jarrett's majority of work a "solo" means the rest is worthless.
No I don't and sadly you confuse me with a complete idiot that knows nothing about music.
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17516
Posted: November 24 2014 at 14:24
Saperlipopette! wrote:
moshkito wrote:
Sadly, you are confusing "popular music" with other things out there. Calling the guitar style in Egberto Gismonti a "solo" is stupid, and bad music knowledge. Calling Keith Jarrett's majority of work a "solo" means the rest is worthless.
No I don't and sadly you confuse me with a complete idiot that knows nothing about music.
That was not the intent, unless you wish to think so!
All I'm saying is that many of the folks in "progressive" music also had the ability that has been in music for thousands of years to create something that today we like to call "solo" because we are not willing or capable of discussing the musical ability that those folks have, some of which would probably be way better than some of the best known performers in the last 500 years!
Why?
The old days had no media for anyone to hear things and compare, and today, this has helped foilks take that ability to incredible degrees of quality, and compositional elements that would not even be considered 300 years ago!
"Solo", in my book, is for the "hits" ... you don't go to see Turandot for one aria or solo. You don't go to see Clapton for one "solo" ... it's an idiotic idea. The issue is that we refuse to give rock music, and its many variations the credit it deserves as solid music that deserves consideration and mention in the history of music ... everyone here, talks about it as just another pop song with a bridge and a solo in it and nothign else ... and after a while that discussion, and THAT SONG are blank, boring, repetitious and have nothing to shake you with!
Why are you, and others, refusing to elevate teh music, when so much of it is way better than merely a pop song? Ohhh btw, Tangerine Dream is a bunch of fa****s and ugly old f**kers that can't play, since all they do during their shows is solo from beginning to the end ... !!!!
Sorry!!!! Your music definition and understanding needs to spread out a bit more. On the floor with a piss is a good start!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 28041
Posted: November 24 2014 at 14:31
moshkito wrote:
Why?. The issue is that we refuse to give rock music, and its many variations the credit it deserves as solid music that deserves consideration and mention in the history of music ... everyone here, talks about it as just another pop song with a bridge and a solo in it and nothign else ...
Sadly, you are confusing "popular music" with other things out there. Calling the guitar style in Egberto Gismonti a "solo" is stupid, and bad music knowledge. Calling Keith Jarrett's majority of work a "solo" means the rest is worthless.
No I don't and sadly you confuse me with a complete idiot that knows nothing about music.
That was not the intent, unless you wish to think so!
All I'm saying is that many of the folks in "progressive" music also had the ability that has been in music for thousands of years to create something that today we like to call "solo" because we are not willing or capable of discussing the musical ability that those folks have, some of which would probably be way better than some of the best known performers in the last 500 years!
Why?
The old days had no media for anyone to hear things and compare, and today, this has helped foilks take that ability to incredible degrees of quality, and compositional elements that would not even be considered 300 years ago!
"Solo", in my book, is for the "hits" ... you don't go to see Turandot for one aria or solo. You don't go to see Clapton for one "solo" ... it's an idiotic idea. The issue is that we refuse to give rock music, and its many variations the credit it deserves as solid music that deserves consideration and mention in the history of music ... everyone here, talks about it as just another pop song with a bridge and a solo in it and nothign else ... and after a while that discussion, and THAT SONG are blank, boring, repetitious and have nothing to shake you with!
Why are you, and others, refusing to elevate teh music, when so much of it is way better than merely a pop song? Ohhh btw, Tangerine Dream is a bunch of fa****s and ugly old f**kers that can't play, since all they do during their shows is solo from beginning to the end ... !!!!
Sorry!!!! Your music definition and understanding needs to spread out a bit more. On the floor with a piss is a good start!
You can't expect everyone else to think like you Pedro. The way you think of 'solos' are so far removed from anything mentioned in this thread that it literally boggles the mind. Don't get me wrong, I understand where you're coming from, but that is NOT the discussion right now.
The above post of yours is highly disrespectful of anyone who isn't 'in on' this pseudo interpretation of yours, and it is furthermore some of the most condescending bull I've read in a long time.
Please refrain from talking down to us mere mortals. Seems like every post you write these days lashes out at innocent bystanders, collaborators or the site itself. If you cannot express your feelings without trashing your surroundings, then I wholeheartedly recommend you go somewhere else.
You may not see it like this, but 90% of what you write these days is downright offensive. Take your snobbery elsewhere.
We are not refusing to elevate the music - on the contrary: we are trying to do exactly that - just through words and simple conversations that normal folks can understand using common words like solos, codas and the likes.....just like your favourite musicians do. Yep I'll bet that even Vangelis uses a word like solo. You just re-leave the word completely of it's meaning and take it even further - suddenly assuming that you know what and how we feel whenever we use such a word. How could you ever know monsieur Nostradamus?
Edited by Guldbamsen - November 24 2014 at 15:01
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.215 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.