Code:

Originally Posted by
RuthMayBond
I actually know three of these

Originally Posted by
keystone
RuthMayBond -- You are living a sheltered life! This is a great list of tunes. There are many of them which would make my "favorites" list as well. I might add Dylan's "Leopard-Skin Pill Box Hat." That song cracks me up.

Originally Posted by
RuthMayBond
And you're retired, so what's your point? :hide: Dylan couldn't sing his way out of wet paper bag that was open on BOTH ends (and neither can a lot of today's singers)

Originally Posted by
keystone
I was *kidding*, RMB! And Dylan wasn't about the singing.

Originally Posted by
RuthMayBond
My bad
<And Dylan wasn't about the singing.>
You can say THAT again

Originally Posted by
Bill Burgess
While it's true that Bob Dylan didn't have a good voice, he proved that if the music is good, and one's voice is well-suited to it, the music can be great.
If the test of a good voice is how well one sings the Star-Spangled Banner, then yes, many successful singers didn't have good voices. But, if one's voice is perfect for the songs one sings, does that really matter? Dylan, John Lennon and Hank Williams proved for all time that it didn't.
If you listen to the Concert for Bangledesh, Dylan sounded great on Lay Lady Lay, Just Like a Woman, etc. He really did.
This point was also made by legendary country singer, Hank Williams, Sr. and also by John Lennon.
While I don't particularly care for country music as a category, I love Hank Williams. I listened to his greatest hits as a teen, and fell in love with his tunes.
Lovesick Blues,
Lost Highway,
I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry,
Crazy Heart,
Jambalaya,
Honky Tonkin',
I Saw the Light,
Long Gone Lonesome Blues,
Howlin' At the Moon,
Hey Good Lookin',
Lonesome Whistle,
Setting the Woods on Fire will always live in my heart as wonderful music. An essential slice of Americana. The pulse of the heartland.
And Lennon doing Imagine underlines the point that he didn't need a great voice to send his message of love out to the people.
Don't back down to him, Keystone! You'll only encourage him. She wasn't kidding, Jeff! She was just being nice to you and not wanting to fight.
Just because you didn't recognize the songs on my list, Jeff, doesn't make them less good music. You simply haven't heard all the good stuff out there.
Why don't you actually give yourself a treat and listen to some of them.
Then tell me that they're no good. Because then you'll have something to base your opinions on. Make a little more sense?

Originally Posted by
RuthMayBond
Most of these are not rock tunes. At any rate, I will tell you what I like about them. It's usually the style or songwriting I don't like, most have talented musicians
Island of Love (The Sheppards, 1959)
Doo-wop is so-so for me, but they do have good harmonies
Positively 4th Street (Bob Dylan, 1965)
Very repetitive but excellent organ playing
You're My Everything (Temptations, 1966)
I don't like the high male voice but great choreography
I Could Never Love Another (Temptations, 1967)
I like this singer more, kinda like this tune :dance
Mercy, Mercy, Mercy (Buckinghams, 1967)
Seem to be copying the Beatles
Surf's Up, (Brian Wilson, 1967)
Nice piano work
Revolution (Beatles, 1968)
Blistering guitar!
Walking In Space (Hair, 1968 London stage version)This is NOT the best version. Only last 80 seconds are great.
Good solo vocals and harmonies
The Soft Parade (Doors, 1969)
You know how I feel about the opening lyrics :rolleyes:
Me & Bobbie McGee (Janis Joplin, 1970)
Guitar isn't too bad
Dead Flowers (Rolling Stones, 1971)
Weird to hear them doing almost country style
Touch A Hand, Make A Friend (Staple Singers, 1973)
Nice harmonies
Rock Your Baby (George McCrae, 1974)
Sorry, I DID know this one, good vocals
That's Where The Happy People Go (Trampps, 1975)
Good vocals, but there was a reason for Disco Demolition Night :hide:
Look Into Your Heart, (Aretha Frankin, 1976, from movie, Sparkle)
No one can wail like her
Don't Play That Song (Aretha Franklin, 1976)
Wow, and she plays piano, I didn't know, wow
The Flesh Failures (Hair, 1979 movie version)
Good vocals, and I did know the end (Let The Sunshine In)
Waiting For A Friend
(Rolling Stones, 1981)
A blah tune from the badboys
Dreams (Cranberries, 1990)
Vaguely familiar, vocals a little breathy but nice
Stay (Temptations, 1998)
They can still croon.
How about that, Bill?

Originally Posted by
Bill Burgess
Wow. I must say that you surprised me quite a bit. I expected you to wax cynical to the stuff that makes me feel happy inside.
But you have proved that you can see some of the things that make my feel good. But you didn't sell out and patronize me, which was nice, Jeff.
If you like, you can leave me some youtube stuff that you think would broaden my creaky horizons. Can you put your own stuff on youtube? Have you figured that out yet?
Maybe if you just strum some chords on your guitar, whistle, or hum or recite your lyrics.
Oh, and by the way. Remember you made that crack about Dylan's voice? Well, Hank Williams, Sr. wrote some Christian music. His voice is most decidedly country, but I wonder what you think of it.
Try this one out.
I Saw the Light Go to the top right, and wait for the software to come online. Then push the icon in in the top right. Let me know if his voice bothers you, or if you can see that it was just right for his stuff.

Originally Posted by
RuthMayBond
To quote near the end of Wizard Of Oz, "You cut me to the quick."
<If you like, you can leave me some youtube stuff that you think would broaden my creaky horizons. Can you put your own stuff on youtube? Have you figured that out yet?
Maybe if you just strum some chords on your guitar, whistle, or hum or recite your lyrics.>
I'll give you a list of some of my favorite songs that are on youtube. I'll stick with one per group in case you don't like the group
<Oh, and by the way. Remember you made that crack about Dylan's voice? Well, Hank Williams, Sr. wrote some Christian music.>
Are you sure that he wrote that song below? I'm more concerned if he meant it rather than if he wrote it
< His voice is most decidedly country, but I wonder what you think of it.
Try this one out.
I Saw the Light Go to the top right, and wait for the software to come online. Then push the icon in in the top right. Let me know if his voice bothers you, or if you can see that it was just right for his stuff. >
His voice is probably right for HIS stuff, but a little twangy for me. Good harmonies though

Originally Posted by
SHOELESSJOE3
My time was the early years of rock and roll. Never thought I could care for Hank Williams, that western honky tonkish music. Some years ago heard Hank doing his thing. Went out and bought a double CD by Hank. What feeling he put into his singing, the words, the stories, Hank was a genius.
What a list of great song writing. I wonder how many know that he was only 30 years old when he passed away,
One note on Dylan. If you ever listen to Subteranean Homesick Blues, tell me, listen to the word structure, his delivery, sounds like a precursor to rap music...........in 1965.
Now back to the game.

Originally Posted by
RuthMayBond
You say that like it's a good thing. Well, if he wants to take the blame . . .

Originally Posted by
SHOELESSJOE3
I hear ya RMB, it does appear to be a good thing in my post, but I I didn't mean it to be a good thing.

Originally Posted by
Bill Burgess
Is there anyone in the house who is a Brian Wilson fan? Anyone? Am I the only one?
Is anyone into Pet Sounds or Smile. The Smile DVD, where they played its February, 2004 world premeir in London, was a truly emotional experience.
Anyone who knows Brian's story is a fan forever. For him to finish his 1967 Smile project was just all over their faces. The Wondermints backed him up as well as humanly possible, and had harmonies quite equal to the Beach Boys. For me it was an emotional/spiritual experience.
Sometimes in life, something actually goes right. Who would have thought!

Originally Posted by
RuthMayBond
OK Bill, it's your (and everyone else's) turn to critique me. I don't know if these are the best recordings, but see if you can stand anything
Kansas, No One Together
Rush, Tom Sawyer
Yes, Roundabout
Jethro Tull, Locomotive Breath
ELP, Karn Evil 9
Genesis, Duke’s End
Chicago, 25 or 6 to 4
Neal Morse, medley
Boston, Smokin
Styx, Foolin Yourself
Asia, Wildest Dreams
ELO, Fire On High
Glass Harp, Can You See Me
AD, High On A Hill
I was going to say that this is my favorite post in a LONG while, but I'm afraid I've killed everyone off

Originally Posted by
keystone
I like those choices, Jeff. Especially Boston, Kansas, and Yes. I think I'm a bit too old to know some of them, though. <sigh> Still made for good listening, and it's always good to learn new stuff! :dance
I would have a terrible time making one of these lists. It would end up being three pages long, and include stuff from the 40's through the 80's. :eek:

Originally Posted by
Bill Burgess
(Jeff) - OK Bill, it's your (and everyone else's) turn to critique me.
When you select 'live' concert versions of songs, it's seldom the best available versions. I can only judge what you presented. So, with that in mind, I'll do my best to evaluate this set of tunes.
No One Together, by Kansas.
Very repetitive. Production was very poor. The separation of the various instruments blurred into each other, reducing the desired effect. Especially would have liked the horns to come through cleaner. The long jams were fatiguing for me, who is not used to this style, or this band. But it is still clear that the music itself was there, and the musicians uniformly excellent. The lead voice was only fair. Not memorable.
If I were to wish to hear this type of song again, I'd probably opt for Chicago. Tighter sound. Better control of their material. I give this tune a 5. Not terrible, but not something I'd listen to again. In this lifetime anyway.
Tom Sawyer, by Rush.
Ok, now we're going from a progressive style to a harder-edged sound. The guitar is darker, and the mood is more ominous. The moog synthesizer gets a little lost in his improves, and it descends into self-indulgence. Less a song than a long improve for each instrument.
I get the feeling of great talent in service of dark, gloomy message. Kept awaiting for a lighter respite to give contrast. In vain! No let-up. I'd give this tune a 3, despite the good efforts of the musicians.
Roundabout, by Yes.
Starts off with guitars having a conversation, then swings into the vocals. Somewhat progressive, but the guitar tries too hard for speed, at the expense of structure. Some nice back and forth interplay. But the guitar once again opts for speed over structure. Now some nice rapport between the members. Hard to hear the lyrics over the hyper-speed of the guitar work. Poor balance of the instruments. Needs a studio cleanup. I give this a 5.
Locomotive Breath, by Jethro Tull.
Promising start. Maybe some relief from the Dark. Nice piano intro. Nope. Descends. Wild guitar gyrations, hard piano pounding, after such a promising intro. Hope the entire set isn't the same genre of dark harshness.
OK. Now it's actually singing some nice stuff. Going back and forth, between despair/hope. At least this song has a story, if I could actually make out the words. You should have stuck to the recorded version. Inprov is cool, but usually the acoustics get sloppy. Still, this is the best song, for me, by far. I'd give this song a 7, for its type.
Karn Evil 9, by Emerson, Lake & Palmer.
Starts off fine, maybe I'll find common ground here and be able to say something positive. Nice keyboards, but a little wandering/rambling. Drummer is obviously amazing. This song is a showcase for the obviously-great drummer. Nice chops. I give it a 7.
Duke’s End, by Genesis.
Once again, progressive rock, with amazing percussionist, great technical musicians. Will this entire set be cast in the same genre? All these songs feature great musicians with amazing technical chops, but all in service to what? Concert inprov, extended jams by musicians, driving aggressive percussion, but the songs themselves require some reigning in and less indulgence. More attention to song-crafting, precision performing. I give this a 5.
25 or 6 to 4, by Chicago.
Finally, a tune that I know well. I hope you realize that this clip is not what it pretends to be. Someone simply played the studio recording to the footage of a concert. It is not possible to get that tight, clean sound anywhere except the recording studio. Ever. Although not my favorite Chicago tune, I give this an 8. Great material, good structure.
Neal Morse, medley.
This piece is just dreadful. Less a song than guys trying to strut their chops. What happened to the music. Got lost somewhere.
The concert should be successful or not before the group takes the stage, based on whether or not the music is there. The music should be great before anything happens. And once the music is set, it should be adhered to and respected, not used as fodder for event excitement.
Too often the music is the first victim of groups too concerned with using sound to excite a room of people. Too much focus on volume, speed and visuals, lighting, smoke, theatrics, etc. Anything but great music.
My first taste of Neal Morse. They have a long haul before they are a coherent musical experience. I give this medley a 2. Sorry.
Smokin, by Boston.
This group loses its way. The keyboardist is good, but I can't find a song in here. This type of organ is normally only found in churches. Help me, somebody. Where am I? Almost phantom of the opera territory. This music is now verging towards the Darkness. Quite Gothic. I thought Christians like the Light? What happened, Jeffrey. Did you miss that day of catechism.
This progressive rock tune needs some more tuning, for my tastes. Remember, I was raised on the sweet sound of Motown. Temptations, Supremes, Miracles. This is a jolt for me, but I am trying to be fair to these guys. I give it a 5.
Foolin Yourself, by Styx.
Alright, we're starting fine. Finally some forbidden melody/harmonies! Oh my gosh. I thought it was out-lawed. Or a sin. Good! Now this is a discernible song, as opposed to extended jams of improv. Alright. OK. This is good. A truly nice tune. And the production is great. They may have arranged to have this be a recorded concert, and cleaned it up in the recording studio. Exceptionally clean for live concert work. And the music is most definitely there. Finally. Thank you, Jeff. One great thing about progressive rock. You can't fault the musicianship, especially the percussionists. They have the finest rock percussionists that rock ever produced. And some of the finest rock guitarists too. This is definitely the jewel of this collection. I give this song a 9.
Wildest Dreams, by Asia.
OK, we're back to performance energy again, and discipline, precision, structure is out the window. Total focus on speed, volume & excitement. Give it a 3
Can You See Me, by Glass Harp
Starts off fine. I actually hear a female voice, and it's coherent! Happiness! The recognizable structure of a song! Happy day. Rather moody atmospherics, but in a good way. Nice violin work. Should rock violinists be placed on the endangered species list? They were? Hadn't heard. Alright sonorous guitar riffs. Little bluesy wail there. Melancholy tune, but well-done. Guitarist just went off in a speed contest to impress, which of course defeats itself. Their set is just too long to sustain interest in the material. Give it a 7.
High On A Hill, by AD.
Was this the best production you could fine? It's barely visible. Hard to make out the people. I get the feeling that the song is actually good, but hard to tell on this version. Sounds as if they have some good melody/harmony. I actually liked their tune. I give it an 7.5.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, that is my critique of this set of songs, Jeffrey. In my day, when you said 'Progressive Rock', people took that for 'Blood, Sweat and Tears', Chicago, Santana, or Moody Blues.
If you said, 'Progressive Jazz', people took that for Dave Brubek Quartet, or Modern Jazz Quartet.
These groups all need rigid discipline. And lots of it.
None of the above groups, despite their obvious vast talents, controlled their material. It controlled them.
If you want to watch a master rock musician, watch the following clip, Jeff. It shows Brian Wilson at the top of his game. He had rehearsed the Wondermints for 1.5 months for the 2004 concert of Smile. They perform like studio musicians. Absolute total mastery of their medium. The music was there before they stepped onstage.
And the audience had flown in from around the world. All Brian fans/followers. If you ever have the privilege of buying the DVD of that Event, you will see a musical master at the top of their game, with a cast of such disciplined musicians onstage as you will might never see. Brian insists on that kind of commitment to the music, the song structures, the precision.
This clip from that concert supersedes by far what others can do in a studio. And this is not a record sound-over, but the concert.
Brian is the Dave Brubek of Rock.
Brian Wilson's Smile, London premier concert

Originally Posted by
Captain Cold Nose
I guess there really is only one way to rock for some. If this van ain't progressive rockin', don't bother knockin'.

Originally Posted by
RuthMayBond
When you got the best, don't mess with the rest

Originally Posted by
Captain Cold Nose
To each their own. I like progressive rock, in general, but it hardly says it all for me. A little too much bombastic pomposity going on there for me to endorse it in full. I can tolerate almost everything. But nothing hits me like Coltrane.
I always have liked both Chicago versions of 25 or 6 to 4 (Cetera and post-Cetera.). That's gotten a lot of mileage when it's just about the songwriter not being able to write anything just after 3:30 in the morning.

Originally Posted by
RuthMayBond
When you can play like Kath and the horns (or find that instrumental songwriting quality), let me know

Originally Posted by
Captain Cold Nose
Touchy, touchy. I said I liked the song. It was the songwriter himself who said that is what it was about. For a song about nothing it's done rather well.
Really, not being able to do what those artists Bill likes didn't stop you from having a less-than-enthusiastic response. And he didn't seem to mind.

Originally Posted by
RuthMayBond
Sorry, you said it like it was your comment
<Really, not being able to do what those artists Bill likes>
Well ... (only for a very few)
<didn't stop you from having a less-than-enthusiastic response.>
I pointed out what I liked

Originally Posted by
Captain Cold Nose
You did at that. Decent observations. You're like the anti-Dave Marsh.

Originally Posted by
RuthMayBond
I hope that's good

Originally Posted by
Captain Cold Nose
You have different tastes and views from the Rock and Roll HOF's resident historian but I'd say the knowledge is there.

Originally Posted by
keystone
Agreed, Cap'n Cold Nose. Lots of progressive rock takes itself too seriously for me. It's not that I don't like music that makes me think (e.g., Dylan, Neil Young, Steve Earl, etc.) but I also like music that makes me feel good. Depending on my mood, it could be Beethoven or Stevie Ray Vaughn.
Wow, I never thought of looking for Ludwig on YouTube.

Originally Posted by
RuthMayBond
Correction, it's seldom the CLEANEST available version. Anyone can have their crap cleaned up in the studio, but not everyone can do well live. I wish I'd known that's what you're looking for.
<No One Together, by Kansas.
Very repetitive.>
Compared to your stuff?
<Especially would have liked the horns to come through cleaner.>
Bill, Kansas doesn't have horns. Which really makes me question your musical expertise.
<The lead voice was only fair. Not memorable.>
Bill, have you ever talked to anyone about classic rock vocalists?
<Tom Sawyer, by Rush.
Ok, now we're going from a progressive style>
Bill, do you even know what progressive is?
<The moog synthesizer gets a little lost in his improves, and it descends into self-indulgence.>
So now instrumental virtuosity is a negative? (Is it ok for vocalists?)
<I get the feeling of great talent in service of dark, gloomy message.>
Yes, you do seem to go by your feelings rather than what's there. Dark, gloomy message? Like Positively 4th Street, Revolution, Dead Flowers, Don't Play That Song, Flesh Failures...?
<Roundabout, by Yes.
Starts off with guitars having a conversation, then swings into the vocals. Somewhat progressive, but the guitar tries too hard for speed, at the expense of structure.>
Bill, progressive rock is about structure (which poorer musicians couldn't even play)
<Locomotive Breath, by Jethro Tull.
Promising start. Maybe some relief from the Dark. Nice piano intro. Nope. Descends. Wild guitar gyrations, hard piano pounding, after such a promising intro. Hope the entire set isn't the same genre of dark harshness.
OK. Now it's actually singing some nice stuff. Going back and forth, between despair/hope. At least this song has a story, if I could actually make out the words.>
So how do you know it does? (and the other songs don't?)
<Duke’s End, by Genesis.
Once again, progressive rock, with amazing percussionist, great technical musicians. Will this entire set be cast in the same genre? All these songs feature great musicians with amazing technical chops, but all in service to what?>
Um, an excellent song?
<More attention to precision performing.>
So they don't do precision performing yet you say they have great technical musicians. You're talking out of both sides of yoou mouth
<25 or 6 to 4, by Chicago.
Finally, a tune that I know well. I hope you realize that this clip is not what it pretends to be. Someone simply played the studio recording to the footage of a concert. It is not possible to get that tight, clean sound anywhere except the recording studio. Ever.>
How much footage are you going to find of 1970 stuff?
<Although not my favorite Chicago tune>
I'd be interested to know yours
<Neal Morse, medley.
Too often the music is the first victim of groups too concerned with using sound to excite a room of people.>
If by music you mean simple songs, then yes, they don't employ that
<Too much focus on volume, visuals, lighting, smoke, theatrics, etc.>
I don't know what clip you were watching
<They have a long haul before they are a coherent musical experience.>
Strangely Neal's lasted longer than some of your groups that weren't even up against much competition
<Smokin, by Boston.
This music is now verging towards the Darkness. Quite Gothic. I thought Christians like the Light? What happened, Jeffrey. Did you miss that day of catechism.>
You're way off on the denomination. Oh, you wanted light fluffy pop, why didn't you say?
<Remember, I was raised on the sweet sound of Motown. Temptations, Supremes, Miracles.>
If by sweet you mean not that adventurous
<Foolin Yourself, by Styx.
One great thing about progressive rock. You can't fault the musicianship, especially the percussionists. They have the finest rock percussionists that rock ever produced. And some of the finest rock guitarists too.>
Have you even read what you've been writing?
<Wildest Dreams, by Asia.
OK, we're back to performance energy again, and discipline, precision, structure is out the window.>
I would love to hear your "precision" groups even attempt these songs
<Can You See Me, by Glass Harp
Starts off fine. I actually hear a female voice, and it's coherent!>
Impressive Bill, since Glass Harp doesn't have a female in the group. Back to your musical assessment
<High On A Hill, by AD.
Was this the best production you could fine? It's barely visible. Hard to make out the people.>
This is an obscure Christian group from almost twenty-five years ago. I'm lucky there are any clips at all
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
<In my day, when you said 'Progressive Rock', people took that for 'Blood, Sweat and Tears',>
They're more jazz tinged
<Chicago,>
Which I included
<Santana,>
scratching my head
<or Moody Blues.>
Which I could have included
<None of the above groups, despite their obvious vast talents, controlled their material. It controlled them.>
Whatever, but at least their material took great skill to control
<you will see a musical master at the top of their game, with a cast of such disciplined musicians onstage as you will might never see.>
*The cast* is good, I'm not convinced of Wilson's "genius"
<Brian insists on that kind of commitment to the music, the song structures, the precision.>
Much easier with easier material.
It seems that my stuff really irritated you, it'd probably be better if I took it down

Originally Posted by
keystone
"Brian is the Brubek of rock." High praise, indeed! I can't argue with you there. While I greatly appreciate him and what he can do, I'm just not a fan of his style of music. The guy is a genius, though.

Originally Posted by
Bill Burgess
I find this comment quite fair, kind & honest. Thank you, Keystone!

Originally Posted by
keystone
Whew! I was afraid I was going to get 30 lashes! :laugh
Brubeck's LP with "Take Five" is quintessential American jazz, IMHO -- every bit as important in the musical history of this country as the Carter Family.

Originally Posted by
Captain Cold Nose
Brubeck was the the Detroit International Jazz Festival last year and I wasn't able to go. :( Take Five is one of my all-time favorites in any musical genre.
Brian Wilson is the Brubeck of rock? I'm not sure. The thing with Brubeck is, as Miles Davis predicted, his style really didn't open itself up to the constant changing that was necessary to keep up with his Jazz contemporaries. While Miles was bringing in his new quintet in the early to mid-60's and keeping his ear out there to what was new and different and using it to fit in with his own style, Brubeck was still playing Take Five. Now that's a good thing, but I think Brian Wilson, when sober and sane, was always trying to set the trends. If the man didn't have so many demons and actually had a musical partner whose ego was bigger than Wilson's talent in Mike Love, who knows where the Beach Boys actually could have went. They certainly wouldn't have ended the sixties as little more than a nostalgia band like they pretty much did.
Certain Progressive Rock bands sound better to me than others. I guess my musical tastes have changed. In the eighties I liked rock and even a little hair band/neo-metal. Having to get out of Miles Davis's way at Heathrow Airport in 1989 (I was probably gawking when i saw him coming my way. I can only imagine what Davis was thinking.) was almost an epiphany. Bands i liked growing up in the AOR 70s seem kid of blah to me, but bands like ELP and Traffic will always sound good.

Originally Posted by
Bill Burgess
For those who aren't familiar with this vintage, classic evergreen song, enjoy.
Take Five
This tune is so good, strong and classy, that if I were a young man, and awaiting a new woman's arrival at my place, I'd have Take Five on my stereo when she got there, to show I had class/taste. Such is the shallow male ego!
The Beach Boys became a traveling oldies act in 1968 because they couldn't/wouldn't follow Brian's lead in new directions. They conceded to him in Pet Sounds/Good Vibrations in 1967, and then rebelled against Smile.
If anyone knows about the history of the Beach Boys, Brian tried like heck to finish it in 1967, and break things open in rock. Lead it in new, experimental areas, bordering on non-rock. But the rest of the Beach Boys balked, fearing loss of their fan base. This in-house family mutiny threw Brian into a tail-spin (that and a bad LSD trip), and brought on many years of mental illness, and took him out of the music picture for what should have been his prime productive years.
He had to fight for his sanity. That he was able to eventually win most of his battles showed a lot of guts, fortitude, tenacity, courage and genius. He finally got back into the recording studio in 1988, and even completed his abandoned Smile project in 2004. Since 1988, Brian has put out 6 music CDs, and all of them are credible rock. I have them all.
Brian Wilson (1988), Sweet Insanity (1990), Imagination (1998), Live At The Roxy Theatre (2000), Gettin' In Over My Head (2004), Smile (2004). He had long ago split with the Beach Boys, who continued to sue him. Mike Love sues him regularly, whenever his checking account gets low. Almost by habit.
Brian never really had musical 'partners'. They were all lyricists. Love insists he helped write many of Brian's tunes, such as California Girls, Good Vibrations, etc. And today, a court awarded Love with co-writing status, so now he horns in on Brian's royalties. I read everything I can on Brian, and am so glad he broke with the Beach Boys. He made his family millionaires and they still treated him like dirt. Sorry for the detour, but Brian is one of my heroes.

Originally Posted by
RuthMayBond
[Concerning Take Five.]It sounds like the bass (and presumably the drums) are playing the same thing over and over. I can't even hear the piano. Good sax though (or is it indulgent?)

Originally Posted by
Captain Cold Nose
You're just responding to Bill as he did to you, right? Making a point?
Rhythm sections are rhythm sections are rhythm sections, etc.?

Originally Posted by
RuthMayBond
Tell me if you hear anything different
<Rhythm sections are rhythm sections are rhythm sections, etc.?>
Not at all

Originally Posted by
Captain Cold Nose
I can hear the piano very distinctly throughout the entire song. It is Brubeck's quartet, after all. Always have been able to. I also hear tempo changes with both the bass and drums, but, like most jazz songs, the drummer and bassist will set the tempo for a song and keep it that way. Highlights the soloists. Which shouldn't be a knock on them, I think cohesion with other instruments is as important as virtuosity.
What's better, a group of four soloists playing on a song together or a group of musicians playing a song together?

Originally Posted by
RuthMayBond
Goodbye RuthMayBond, hello TinEar

Originally Posted by
Captain Cold Nose
So why is what you're saying different?
A lot of people's problems with progressive rock is, despite the undeniable talent and musicianship, it could just appear as a bunch of musicians playing, waiting out their turn to solo. One musician after another strutting their stuff without concern of their fellow musicians or what's going on behind them.
I can get Sean to make that name change if you wish. I wasn't accusing you of that, I was just saying I have always been able to hear the piano on that song, I firts heard it in a jazz appreciation class and we were told to focus on it.

Originally Posted by
RuthMayBond
Except that progressive rock is hardly only solos.
<I was just saying I have always been able to hear the piano on that song, I firts heard it in a jazz appreciation class and we were told to focus on it.>
Ah, so you heard it on a (probably better quality than youtube) recording and were told to focus on it. Hmm ...

Originally Posted by
Captain Cold Nose
Perhaps I should have made myself more clear. I didn't listen to the YouTube version here. But I've always been able to hear it, it is quite distinctive when you listen to it in a proper context. Like a standard recording. It's on quite a few soundtracks and various artists cds. You can't be blamed for the quality of what you hear. And I wasn't holding that above or against you. Just saying.
Progressive rock may indeed be hardly only solos, but it seems like each musician is "in if for themselves" in a lot of cases. Regardless of what the other musicians are playing. Thus, the indulgent tag.
There's more to music than musicianship.

Originally Posted by
RuthMayBond
:banghead

Originally Posted by
Captain Cold Nose
Why bother? I'm very familiar with the song. Are you still taking this as a diss on you?

Originally Posted by
RuthMayBond
Because it was that particular version upon which I was commenting
<Are you still taking this as a diss on you?>
Are you still assuming that's how I'm taking it?