Toaster Mantis wrote: ... progressive rock/metal endures in historical influence and what fades. ...

This also changes over time. With the advent of FM radio in America, the long cut starte superimposing the Radio AM band and its hit stuff. And with "Woodstock" it helped bring out a generation that was not afraid of the longer cut.  THAT, more than anything else, helped the music get exposed, or it might have been way harder than we think.

Byt the mid 70's when the Corporate buyouts started, the first things to go, were the FM stations that had made it big and were eating up the radio profits big time. Ten years later, it was TV's!

Musically, I think that a lot of these were much more influenced by the market conditions than they were by the music itself. There were many bands that had hits but did not sell well, just like the reverse ... and the Grateful Dead was a perfect example ... they were not on radio anywhere and they sold more, even in bootlegs which they allowed, than almost 50 or more % of all the bands out there. But as much influence as radio could/would have, or any social definition we can find, that band was not to be a commercial juggernaut like Led Zep, The Who and the Rolling Stones, which most record companies were hoping like crazy to get their hands on ... and tried hard to do so with massive advertising for anything that might at any second pop loose!

I think the "musical" this and that detail, is less of a factor, although in America one could say it was more blues and jazz oriented, but then, saying that Soft Machine/Pink floyd/Canterbury was not jazz influenced and "composition" influenced, is nuts and crazy, although they enjoyed their freedoms when they were available.

Toaster Mantis wrote: ... 1960s/1970s progressive rock has "aged the best" basically comes down to its inspiration to later music subcultures....

Yes, no and maybe. Like everything else in this world, yesterday's news have a tendency to get lost and not even thought about it, and in some cases, people even go to the extreme of completely destroying the history as a way to make a point about it's very own nature.

Music, and specifically the history of all arts, is ... sometimes ... the worst about this. Absolutely the worst. You can go as far back as the first millenium that was almost exclusively destroyed in the Europe by the Church. And now, you are finding that other folks around the world are doing the same thing, be it on the Hymalaias or Africa or somewhere else.

History, would have all of these "sub-cultures" and sometimes there are/were many of them, and all of them either aided the confusion, or helped kill it, but we know that up to 1400 or 1500, Europe was systematically cleaned out of its history ... to preserve one religion! One can only hope that the lack of a "written" format, is not the reason why almost all of the arts disappeared and eventually gave rise to one of the biggest animal hunt( hate to say humanhunt - but it is what it was!) in the history of this world, by punishing people that did not fit, or felt and thought differently. Heck, this still happens today, despite the internet trying hard to create a "single" entity all over the world!

"Sub-cultures", in many ways, are also the minorities and the ones that are ignored the most. They are also, the first victims of extermination or least amount of attention. TODAY, this is not as easy, because the internet has a way of making big look small and small look big ... but it still will have a hard time getting attention, as is the case here on PA when folks, STILL, only know a top ten concept and society! AND, they base most of their thinking and attention to that concept and society, since it is all they know ... I'm not quite critical of that, except for one detail ... do you really think that "progressive' would have come alive with people thinking like that?  ... the answer is blatant and loud. NO. And sometimes, I think that we're afraid to look and study some of these things ... the "truth" in them is sad ... no secret that the Spaniards raked all of Central America, the Portuguese adn Dutch raked the Brazilians ... and so on ... not to mention what some white settlers did to American Indians ... in all of these examples, their cultures were almost single handedly destroyed and little is left of their world. it was, some can say, in a sort of Jung'ian symbol, a case of the might makes right ... and the rest is gone.

Arts are not different.

Toaster Mantis wrote: ...  It started when I thought that King Crimson's heavy mid-1970s triptych of Larks' Tongues in Aspic, Starless and Bible Black and Red has aged way better than not just their other classic albums, but also most other canonical LPs from that scene...

Started way before that.

Please go read Robert Wyatt's book. It goes back 10 more years, and they are much more important to the eventual work that was done. Those years "were" the inspiration that helped KC and many others stand out. It DID NOT, start with those albums!

Toaster Mantis wrote: ... I've also noticed a similar thing with the Krautrock movement, which seems to on average have way more intergenerational appeal with people my age than the "Anglo-prog" of its time. Maybe this could be a result of the Teutons thinking a bit further outside the box in terms of music experimentation ...

You don't need to go any further reading or discussing this, than Edgar Froese's words in the special. In one sentence, it's all there.

But there was a VERY well documented idea that the music schools in Germany, INTENTIONALLY, went after anything that did not have a "Western Musical concept" in it, and if it was meditative, fine, if it was weird fine ... but it's results did magnificently because it was not just defined in "music", but also in FILM and THEATER and LITERATURE, and this is the main reason why a lot of people on this board do not understand the music and its development was not "accidental" ... I agree with Dean here ... it was a bit "thought out", but the results were fantastic and many of us love them dearly.

By comparison, few of the bands I have heard that try to "copy" krautrock, suceed, because they are missing the one little detail that is required to make it work ... and that is ... you go for the sound and the feel, not just the notes ... and this is what separates Ax Gernrich from others in Guru Guru or Amon Duul 2 in the early days, and the "trips" in AshRaTempel and Klaus Schulze ... it was about the moment, not the "music", and we are forgetting that vital detail, even if it does not sound right! Sometimes, the "wrong" part, or thing, becomes the right moment, even if it is not "musical".

We, STILL, do not know how to credit and appreciate the amount of work (and rehearsal - if such existed -- which CAN did have!) that it took to achieve what those folks did ... which was "communication" ... instead of just a bunch of SOLO stuff in the jazz style.

Toaster Mantis wrote: ... I Would be interesting to hear some observations from people who have been around a bit longer for the rise of some of those movements. (I'm something of a novice within electronic music and noise rock, as much as I've come to love both in the last 3 years)

Electronic, has a more "classical" source, and even the theremin and some of the others had a few experimental folks in the arena of classical music, although it's use in rock, for my tastes, kinda start and end with Tangerine Dream and Vangelis, both of which are modern classical music. Klaus Schulze also fits here, with a different type of orchestra, if we can say that about what he does.

In some ways, this "classical music" fits the krautrock thing, but its roots are very different from the rock and jazz development of the other styles. There was electronic music in the 1950's and the theremin was already in use, even in MOVIES, mostly sci-fi stuff. This later was extended to be "repetitious", which you could see in Terry Riley and then CAN, and eventually NEU and KRAFTWERK as the best examples. But this "repetitious" style, was not just that, even though some folks thought it was. I never thought, for example, that Klaus Schulze is "repetitious" ... because the constant changes is an experience all on its own.

Dean wrote: ... How often do we see "I can't explain it, but I know it when I hear it" in such debates. I do not believe we do overlook it at all.

Within an acting context this is very true. And we could also say that it was not overlooked at all, because our concentration was on another detail, that prevented you/I/us from seeing a couple of other things that might/mightnot help the situation.

Attention span has many levels, and some of us can use more than one -- I don't actually like to since it has a tendency to "scatter" things for me! But the downside is that I might not be open enough to see other things around it. This is a VERY IMPORTANT exercise for anyone on stage, and something that musicians lack in general on a stage. The best bands on stage have this communication cleaned up. Most jazz bands out there I have EVER seen (except RTF) have not had this communication cleaned up because it was about their solo'ing and not the music!

Now you can see the problem ... and one reason why I do not like to "use" the word "solo" within the "progressive" context, because it implies individuality and not the completeness of the whole piece of music. We don't even talk about "solo" on violin concertos from Mozart!

moshkito wrote: This also changes over time. With the advent of FM radio in America, the long cut starte superimposing the Radio AM band and its hit stuff. And with "Woodstock" it helped bring out a generation that was not afraid of the longer cut.  THAT, more than anything else, helped the music get exposed, or it might have been way harder than we think. Byt the mid 70's when the Corporate buyouts started, the first things to go, were the FM stations that had made it big and were eating up the radio profits big time. Ten years later, it was TV's! Musically, I think that a lot of these were much more influenced by the market conditions than they were by the music itself. There were many bands that had hits but did not sell well, just like the reverse ... and the Grateful Dead was a perfect example ... they were not on radio anywhere and they sold more, even in bootlegs which they allowed, than almost 50 or more % of all the bands out there. But as much influence as radio could/would have, or any social definition we can find, that band was not to be a commercial juggernaut like Led Zep, The Who and the Rolling Stones, which most record companies were hoping like crazy to get their hands on ... and tried hard to do so with massive advertising for anything that might at any second pop loose! I think the "musical" this and that detail, is less of a factor, although in America one could say it was more blues and jazz oriented, but then, saying that Soft Machine/Pink floyd/Canterbury was not jazz influenced and "composition" influenced, is nuts and crazy, although they enjoyed their freedoms when they were available.

I've heard the same thing, that the FM radio format contributed quite a bit to popularizing progressive rock because it meant that longer compositions finally got played played on rock radio. The entire business angle is obviously very important here, and the fact that the mainstream record industry was finally willing to give more avantgarde/experimental music a chance was as much of a motivation behind the rise of progressive rock's rise to popularity first time around.

Then there is how the decline can be traced back to the music business losing industry forcing a lot of artists to get more commercial, except the really big names like Pink Floyd and their associates. (maybe PF aren't that good an example, always being more "normal rock music" than the other British groups)  Perhaps also Frank Zappa and company, since he had his own series and network of record labels (Bizarre/Straight/Barking Pumpkin) as well as those circles who had their own independent music infrastructure set up which the Rock In Opposition movement was a very strong example of.

Yes, no and maybe. Like everything else in this world, yesterday's news have a tendency to get lost and not even thought about it, and in some cases, people even go to the extreme of completely destroying the history as a way to make a point about it's very own nature. Music, and specifically the history of all arts, is ... sometimes ... the worst about this. Absolutely the worst. You can go as far back as the first millenium that was almost exclusively destroyed in the Europe by the Church. And now, you are finding that other folks around the world are doing the same thing, be it on the Hymalaias or Africa or somewhere else. History, would have all of these "sub-cultures" and sometimes there are/were many of them, and all of them either aided the confusion, or helped kill it, but we know that up to 1400 or 1500, Europe was systematically cleaned out of its history ... to preserve one religion! One can only hope that the lack of a "written" format, is not the reason why almost all of the arts disappeared and eventually gave rise to one of the biggest animal hunt( hate to say humanhunt - but it is what it was!) in the history of this world, by punishing people that did not fit, or felt and thought differently. Heck, this still happens today, despite the internet trying hard to create a "single" entity all over the world! "Sub-cultures", in many ways, are also the minorities and the ones that are ignored the most. They are also, the first victims of extermination or least amount of attention. TODAY, this is not as easy, because the internet has a way of making big look small and small look big ... but it still will have a hard time getting attention, as is the case here on PA when folks, STILL, only know a top ten concept and society! AND, they base most of their thinking and attention to that concept and society, since it is all they know ... I'm not quite critical of that, except for one detail ... do you really think that "progressive' would have come alive with people thinking like that?  ... the answer is blatant and loud. NO. And sometimes, I think that we're afraid to look and study some of these things ... the "truth" in them is sad ... no secret that the Spaniards raked all of Central America, the Portuguese adn Dutch raked the Brazilians ... and so on ... not to mention what some white settlers did to American Indians ... in all of these examples, their cultures were almost single handedly destroyed and little is left of their world. it was, some can say, in a sort of Jung'ian symbol, a case of the might makes right ... and the rest is gone. Arts are not different.

Yeah. I imagine that when you look at it, most major "subculture" categorizations are really multiple movements and communities generalized together split across many different regional scenes and with their own internal subdivisions. (in the case of progressive rock, as Raff once said does an Art Zoyd fan really belong to the same music fan as a Marillion fan?)

I wager that a good deal of the unification of them under a single banner is as often done by outside journalists and marketing trying to appeal to the demographic, to the point that the creation of a subcultural identity might then be done by outsiders. See http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/259919.html" rel="nofollow - this article by Thomas Frank about how much the 1960s counterculture was shaped by marketing to the point it's difficult to say exactly when it was co-opted if that's even a useful way to describe it, then how much of punk's visual aesthetic was put together by Malcolm McLaren if from the jumping point of the early/mid-1970s UK glam rock movement.

Of course, I'm also somewhat tired of the cynical tendency in some quarters to dismiss a specific subculture out of hand because of the inevitable commercialization or the fact that maybe most members don't really follow it on more than a superficial level, because that doesn't still mean that good art can't come out of it or that its self-image (however out of touch with reality) isn't a good ideal to actually live up to in reality. Then again that might be hypocritical of me to write, because I'm in some aspects too jaded myself (or too academically distanced?) to really identify with that kind of idealism as I used to and I kind of wish I could go back to that state. See also http://rateyourmusic.com/board_message?message_id=5551791&board_id=1&show=20&start=0" rel="nofollow - this thread I found while lurking on RateYourMusic , where the user HorseMouth points out that the later media canonization of psychedelic music actually meant that a lot of the less mainstream-friendly and more genuinely radical and experimental to this day has been pushed underground out of public consciousness as a result.

I just realized that in the above paragraph, I have just summarized what I get the impression was Frank Zappa's relationship to the 1960s counterculture as documented by his gradually increasing disillusion across the first three Mothers of Invention albums. He still respected some of its proclaimed ideals, but found parts of it dangerously naïve and didn't like how it worked out in practice.

Started way before that. Please go read Robert Wyatt's book. It goes back 10 more years, and they are much more important to the eventual work that was done. Those years "were" the inspiration that helped KC and many others stand out. It DID NOT, start with those albums!

I enjoyed his contributions to Syd Barrett's solo albums, and have been meaning to get into The Soft Machine and Robert Wyatt's oeuvre overall so maybe I'll finally make good on that promise.

For the record, I do kind of wonder how much historical consciousness you need to really understand music this ambitious. My somewhat basic and superficial level of familiarity with classical and jazz, not to mention academic music theory which I know a bit about but only the barest essentials, means that I'm kind of curious how much compositional content in much avantgarde/progressive/technical music goes over the head of me.

Then again, I think that's not accomplished easily because in my experience it takes a handful of years at least to form a working knowledge of a music genre on more than an entry level and where it's coming from historically as well as which sources it developed from again. All that stuff I think is easier said than done.

By comparison, few of the bands I have heard that try to "copy" krautrock, suceed, because they are missing the one little detail that is required to make it work ... and that is ... you go for the sound and the feel, not just the notes ... and this is what separates Ax Gernrich from others in Guru Guru or Amon Duul 2 in the early days, and the "trips" in AshRaTempel and Klaus Schulze ... it was about the moment, not the "music", and we are forgetting that vital detail, even if it does not sound right! Sometimes, the "wrong" part, or thing, becomes the right moment, even if it is not "musical". We, STILL, do not know how to credit and appreciate the amount of work (and rehearsal - if such existed -- which CAN did have!) that it took to achieve what those folks did ... which was "communication" ... instead of just a bunch of SOLO stuff in the jazz style.

Are you referring to something like K-X-P's update of Neu! and Kraftwerk, or what bands like Acid Mothers Temple and Colour Haze do with Ash Ra Tempel and Guru Guru-type space rock? That's the thing with trying to revive a music style that's very distinctly a product of a specific time and place, you'll often end with an end result that's very different for better and for worse...

Then again, I might not have picked the best examples since the bands I listen to the most who are in that vein less seek to revive than "reconstruct" their inspirations for a contemporary audience's sensibility.

Toaster Mantis wrote: ... I've heard the same thing, that the FM radio format contributed quite a bit to popularizing progressive rock because it meant that longer compositions finally got played played on rock radio. The entire business angle is obviously very important here, and the fact that the mainstream record industry was finally willing to give more avantgarde/experimental music a chance was as much of a motivation behind the rise of progressive rock's rise to popularity first time around. ...

FM radio, specially in America has to be the biggest consideration here, since the obvious fact was that the minute that the bigger FM stations started ripping up the profits in the radio market, and this happened VERY FAST, all of a sudden the AM rinky dinky stations would have no value ... in America this is disastrous! This MIGHT NOT be the issue in England AT ALL!

The main difference here is that in America, at that time, RADIO WAS the largest percentage of sales, and now you have to do the math ... US alone probably sold more than all of Europe put together ... and the chances and commercial development of this area of business became very important.

How much did it affect the business is a whole other book, that will require a lot more studies, but you already know that AM rinky dink stuff only played 3 minutes of "Light My Fire" and it was the extended version and so many other things, that helped sell all thaat stuff. Iron Butterfly was never on AM radio, but you heard it many times in LA on the 3 FM stations ... and that means ... $$$ ... as in sales!

(this is a simplified comment, but the jest should be very true!)

Toaster Mantis wrote: ... Then there is how the decline can be traced back to the music business losing industry forcing a lot of artists to get more commercial, except the really big names like Pink Floyd and their associates. (maybe PF aren't that good an example, always being more "normal rock music" than the other British groups) ...

There never was a decline, except in the profits. But they were already making a lot ofmoney and a couple of years later they gave Led Zeppellin millions, and Rolling Stones millions, and a 20ft penis for the stage. They can take that lie and shove it!

There is no idiot out there, for crying out loud, that would be in business to not make money ... what they were complaining about is that now they could not get 5 pounds of coke, and only got 3 pounds ... let me go to the bathroom first, please!

Toaster Mantis wrote: ...  Perhaps also Frank Zappa and company, since he had his own series and network of record labels (Bizarre/Straight/Barking Pumpkin) as well as those circles who had their own independent music infrastructure set up which the Rock In Opposition movement was a very strong example of. ...

The idea here was about owning your own work and being able to make all the deals and necessary work to do what you wanted. Not everyone had that kind of impetus, and even my friend told me the story that this also happened to The Firesign Theater, but apparently they were not ready at that time to separate themselves from Columbia Records. (... I think it was Columbia ... have to re-check!).

It was already a well known fact, that even the Beatles did not own their own stuff at that point and many people started trying to go into a different direction to try and have better control of their work.

Would that change the commercial jaunts and folks? Yeah, in the sense that they would have to come up with their own gigs to be able to make money, and that's when advertising took over on the Strip and in NY and probably in London! Not that it was not there already, but not on this huge scale!

And a lot of it was not that good, or valuable, and in some cases, they went out and got fake artists, and then dumped them in the street when they were found to be "fake" and then gave them the gallows!

At that point, I think that a lot of music came up on its own, and immediately got some representation by all the folks that were "against the system", which sadly meant they were going to become the "new system", that supposedly was hipper ... but they were the same! Malcom McLaren, Brunson (Virgin) and many others, went on to make a lot for themselves, at the expense of many artists that did not even get a house for their troubles!

Toaster Mantis wrote: ... Of course, I'm also somewhat tired of the cynical tendency in some quarters to dismiss a specific subculture out of hand because of the inevitable commercialization or the fact that maybe most members don't really follow it on more than a superficial level, because that doesn't still mean that good art can't come out of it or that its self-image (however out of touch with reality) isn't a good ideal to actually live up to in reality. Then again that might be hypocritical of me to write, because I'm in some aspects too jaded myself (or too academically distanced?) to really identify with that kind of idealism as I used to and I kind of wish I could go back to that state. ...

I am not a good one to discuss "sub-cultures" ... in so many ways, for me, what started out as one of these, became major in NY, under the umbrella of Andi Warhol, in SF it came under the umbrella of Tom Donohue (more or less), and in LA under the guise of liberalism through KPFK and other stations.

At that point, EVERYTHING became a sub-culture, and everything was trying to "make it" and show that it was more valuable because of its popular content. When that started happening, things like Frank Zappa, lost its "underground" appeal, which originally was what made it cool! So, now Frank had to adapt, and he did and had a massively gigantic radio hit (overnight Sensation) that put him on the map. But it blew out his cover and his "sub-culture". (I find it hard to really word this properly, btw ... so the wording might be incorrect!) ...

Too many of these "sub-cultures" were just reactionary pockets that just wanted attention, and they eventually got enough of it to make a dollar or two ... but I can not say that this is the case in Europe as much, since there is a respect for the arts and art-forms, and consequently more appreciation than is visible in America. America takes away the artistic stuff and strips it to look like everything else ... at that point only the make up and the nudity has any value ... not the music, the art or the film!

Is Europe really that different? Not in Italy!

Toaster Mantis wrote: ... For the record, I do kind of wonder how much historical consciousness you need to really understand music this ambitious. My somewhat basic and superficial level of familiarity with classical and jazz, not to mention academic music theory which I know a bit about but only the barest essentials, means that I'm kind of curious how much compositional content in much avantgarde/progressive/technical music goes over the head of me. ...

I am not sure that we all can possibly have all the intelect and all the stupidity to put something like this together. Would some of these come off as "superficial", is more than likely since we are looking at it from afar and years later. It's like us calling Bacch "baroque" and he would go ... WHAT? What does that mean?

The compositional element is the part that is "easiest" to discuss, with one problem ... the comments and details mentioned are common to all other types of music, thus, simply discussing those elements and not taking a look at what was there before and after, would create an empty idea with little weight. In one way or another, many of these "elements" are reactionary and sometimes not intentional. And this is the part that is hard, and sometimes, even Dean will counter (I don't mind at all!!!) because it comes off as an idea, and a reality that is hard to detail, since the next band ... does it differently! Now, you don't have a movement or an idea, and if the band is American, they don't even know about the arts anyway ... they just want to play the blues and jazz and progressive ... regardless of what that means, sometimes!

Discussing art scenes in America is hard ... the one in NY is not the same as the one in LA at all ... the one in SF is not the same as the one in New Orleans. These are like 4 different countries in Europe, more or less, and this is the part that makes it hard to discuss. WE HAVE a history of the arts in Europe ... America has no history of the arts, because they killed most of it and only the past 150 years is something found that can be considered, but even then, painting and music, has been nothing until the advent of the 20th century and then (more than likely) because of the media alone! Conversely, you look at Europe and you have hundreds of years to work from ... and this makes a discussion on America really more diverse and difficult.

I, do not consider my own comments, for example, a valid historical document, other than the fact this is what I saw in Madison, WI for 6 years and had my head bashed in Chicago, and then my 12 years in Santa Barbara, next to the LA basin during all of the 70's. And a lot of SF since it is nearby and we knew what was going on up there, kinda.

Toaster Mantis wrote: ... Are you referring to something like K-X-P's update of Neu! and Kraftwerk, or what bands like Acid Mothers Temple and Colour Haze do with Ash Ra Tempel and Guru Guru-type space rock? ...

I would prefer that this part of the discussion be on another thread in its proper context.

I do not see, btw, these folks doing anything close to the originals ... and in many ways AMT is more of a thrash to my ears than it is anything else, although it has its freedoms, but there is very little free form within it, and it shows in their drumming and the material and their design. What we have come to call "kozmiche" music, is a lot more than just a concept and an idea ... it's actually a reality that many musicians are afraid of. What AMT does is not based on a form of theater, or interactive improvisation that is external to the music. Theirs, to my ears, is strictly a "music" improvisation. Very academic to my nose and ears.

Hi,

(read it again ... lots of little things!)

Toaster Mantis wrote: I've heard the same thing, that the FM radio format contributed quite a bit to popularizing progressive rock because it meant that longer compositions finally got played played on rock radio. The entire business angle is obviously very important here, and the fact that the mainstream record industry was finally willing to give more avantgarde/experimental music a chance was as much of a motivation behind the rise of progressive rock's rise to popularity first time around. ...

FM, from my own understanding (Guy Guden might be better about this part), did not "start" out in the Corporate world at all. Like many businesses, it was a new venture that many folks took on. it was later that the Corporate buy out in America pretty much took out the freedoms that many of these stations had, and it made a difference. NOT that any issues and problems with playing hits were not in place, or at least as demanding as a top ten station like the AM station that another friend of mine was on a lot (Tom Payne). He could not even play the things he liked!

Toaster Mantis wrote: ... I just realized that in the above paragraph, I have just summarized what I get the impression was Frank Zappa's relationship to the 1960s counterculture as documented by his gradually increasing disillusion across the first three Mothers of Invention albums. He still respected some of its proclaimed ideals, but found parts of it dangerously naïve and didn't like how it worked out in practice. ...

I'm about to read one bio on Frank ... and might have more on this, although I would think that Guy Guden would be a much better authority on the LA area than I can since he was there during that early time.

I think that the previous "underground" finally "made it", and that was the end of it ... and another "underground" replaced it. Something like it. However, I do believe that the counter-culture thing was more of a satire than a reality, and perhaps we're taking it overly serious. But it's hard to argue with the colorful side of it in print and art, although I have this feeling that Frank was trying to see if he could do the same thing musically as any "picture" with all those weird colors.

Hi,

I'm not sure that you can differentiate the situation in Santa Barbara and the FM stations in the late 60's and early 70's, at least in how I see and know it, from your experience at the BBC, one of the most controlled environments ever, that even Spike Milligan had many issues with that are documented. At least in how it relates to a lot of Southern California, although I might exclude KMET and KLOS in this mold (Roger Waters and Jim Ladd), because they were big, but not representative of what we talk about. They probably WERE the first BIG corporate stations that helped kill the FM stations that helped bring all this to the front!

THERE WAS A FREEDOM, that allowed, as Guy mentioned on another post, likely 90% of all the material we list WAS played, and you could only do that if that freedom was allowed, and it was!

Trust me, when I say, as a listener, that since I left Santa Barbara in 1982, I have NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER NEVER EVER found anything that came anywhere near what Guy did, which was ... for your thoughts and many of the folks here ... totally insane and outside the realms of possibility since no one here can imagine it.

Please, if you can, and you already commented once something rather impolite about it all, re-check the thread on SPR, that despite a slipup between Paul and I (we went to SBCC at the same time!), what most folks remember and share about the show, is not your conventional radio show, or something like many of the other radio shows that everyone knows, and is used to listening to.

This is not only different, I would love to say that it invented the word "different", and I wish I could share the amount of shows I have (over 400 hours in wonderful quality all of it now on mp3), but I will forever respect one of the best friends (he probably would only call me a portuguese dayglo cook!) I have ever had the chance to meet. The shows will die with me, unless I have written permissions. But our trips down "Ventura Highway" in the sunshine ... to Moby Disk and Tower and Westwood and that magazine stand that I could get Melody Maker ... still ... some of the greatest excitement ever ... and I wish there was a way for you to experience it!

Now to get on "thread" with this ... yes, it could happen today, but I think that we need someone that is not afraid of being pisted on (intentionally mispelled!) by an audience that is somewhat afraid to hear things they do not know, do not understand, and does not always have lyrics to explain it to them in Cliff Notes style!

And now ... time for more music more music more music more music ...

moshkito wrote: Hi, I'm not sure that you can differentiate the situation in Santa Barbara and the FM stations in the late 60's and early 70's, at least in how I see and know it, from your experience at the BBC, one of the most controlled environments ever, that even Spike Milligan had many issues with that are documented. At least in how it relates to a lot of Southern California, although I might exclude KMET and KLOS in this mold (Roger Waters and Jim Ladd), because they were big, but not representative of what we talk about. They probably WERE the first BIG corporate stations that helped kill the FM stations that helped bring all this to the front! THERE WAS A FREEDOM, that allowed, as Guy mentioned on another post, likely 90% of all the material we list WAS played, and you could only do that if that freedom was allowed, and it was! Trust me, when I say, as a listener, that since I left Santa Barbara in 1982, I have NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER NEVER EVER found anything that came anywhere near what Guy did, which was ... for your thoughts and many of the folks here ... totally insane and outside the realms of possibility since no one here can imagine it.

Once again you interpret what you think I wrote and not precisely what I wrote. 

moshkito wrote: Please, if you can, and you already commented once something rather impolite about it all, re-check the thread on SPR, that despite a slipup between Paul and I (we went to SBCC at the same time!), what most folks remember and share about the show, is not your conventional radio show, or something like many of the other radio shows that everyone knows, and is used to listening to.

No, I am pretty sure I never have.

moshkito wrote: Now to get on "thread" with this ... yes, it could happen today, but I think that we need someone that is not afraid of being pisted on (intentionally mispelled!) by an audience that is somewhat afraid to hear things they do not know, do not understand, and does not always have lyrics to explain it to them in Cliff Notes style! And now ... time for more music more music more music more music ...