|
|
Post by Jethro Tull FTW on Feb 21, 2012 12:00:23 GMT -5
I don't think progressive rock is the right genre for Gentle Giant.
When I think prog. rock I think "Shine on you Crazy Diamond" and "Close to the Edge." Rather long pieces, but most of GG's songs are relatively short. I class them as Avant-Garde rock.
|
|
kaibailey
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by kaibailey on Feb 27, 2012 19:52:40 GMT -5
That's funny, I respect your opinion, but I don't think Progressive rock is really defined by the length of the music. Avant-Garde would be an accurate description of them to me. But then again genres are only silly words.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jethro Tull FTW on Mar 2, 2012 12:50:16 GMT -5
That's funny, I respect your opinion, but I don't think Progressive rock is really defined by the length of the music. Avant-Garde would be an accurate description of them to me. But then again genres are only silly words. Yeah I suppose it isn't really about the length, but rather how much is progresses. |
|
kaibailey
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by kaibailey on Mar 6, 2012 1:34:47 GMT -5
That's funny, I respect your opinion, but I don't think Progressive rock is really defined by the length of the music. Avant-Garde would be an accurate description of them to me. But then again genres are only silly words. Yeah I suppose it isn't really about the length, but rather how much is progresses. I think I see what your getting at. I think the term "progressive" is meant to imply that it is "progress" from the three-chord format of bands like the Beatles and the Stones. I don't know if that's what you were implying. It's really just a silly genre anyway. I think it's one of the most illusive genres ever. Jethro Tull and Pink Floyd are both considered Progressive Rock bands, but when you listen to their music, how could you ever lump them into the same category? I have a feeling "progressive" rock was just something that critics relied on when they had a hard time defining a band's sound--as if they ever needed to. |
|
|
|
Post by Jethro Tull FTW on Mar 6, 2012 14:42:23 GMT -5
Yeah I suppose it isn't really about the length, but rather how much is progresses. I think I see what your getting at. I think the term "progressive" is meant to imply that it is "progress" from the three-chord format of bands like the Beatles and the Stones. I don't know if that's what you were implying. It's really just a silly genre anyway. I think it's one of the most illusive genres ever. Jethro Tull and Pink Floyd are both considered Progressive Rock bands, but when you listen to their music, how could you ever lump them into the same category? I have a feeling "progressive" rock was just something that critics relied on when they had a hard time defining a band's sound--as if they ever needed to. I really have no idea how Jethro Tull are labelled as a prog. rock band. Only thing that "I" would label as prog would be A Passion Play, TAAB, Baker St., Locomotive Breath (piano intro) and few other little things here and then. Also how anyone could label them a metal band, like when the won that Grammy for Crest of a Knave. I think they just felt sorry J.T had never gotten' a grammy still to the opening track, Steel Monkey, heard it was a bit metal and nominated it. I mean "She said she was a dancer" and "Budapest" are on that album. Not exactly metal, but I suppose there's no category for quirky acoustic guitar, flute wielding bands is there? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Morthoron on Mar 6, 2012 15:44:23 GMT -5
Yeah I suppose it isn't really about the length, but rather how much is progresses. I think I see what your getting at. I think the term "progressive" is meant to imply that it is "progress" from the three-chord format of bands like the Beatles and the Stones. I don't know if that's what you were implying. It's really just a silly genre anyway. I think it's one of the most illusive genres ever. Jethro Tull and Pink Floyd are both considered Progressive Rock bands, but when you listen to their music, how could you ever lump them into the same category? I have a feeling "progressive" rock was just something that critics relied on when they had a hard time defining a band's sound--as if they ever needed to. The definors for "Prog-Rock" are fairly wide, and given the general concept of "progressivity" in rock: a divergence from basic blues and early rock 'n' roll elements with simple 3 or 4 chord structure, the integration of classical and jazz compositional elements, and elongated song structure (often of a conceptual, esoteric or heightened nature), then Tull is a prime example of a prog band, particularly with the shift from a blues-rock based album This Was, to a more progressive format on Stand Up, with its reliance on jazz and classical motifs, strings and even world music ("Bouree", "Nothing is Easy", "Fat Man", "Reasons for Waiting", etc.). And that progressivity was to reach full-flower on Thick as a Brick and A Passion Play, although Aqualung certainly has progressive elements in its extrended themes, conceptual nature and a rather innovative alternating folk acoustic and hard rock structure (which was quite novel for 1971) . I would also point to Minstrel in the Gallery, Songs from the Wood, Heavy Horses and Stormwatch as being in the progressive vein. |
|
kaibailey
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by kaibailey on Mar 7, 2012 0:08:13 GMT -5
I can get where the last two posts are coming from, but they are also good examples of why I think the term Progressive Rock is a bit of a joke. The qualifications of it are extremely vague, and there are huge varieties of people opinions on what those qualifications are--these completely different bands going in completely different directions in completely different ways and then they are all lumped into the category of "Prog" simply because the one thing they all really had in common was that they were trying to come up with something new. For example, if Bill Monroe had come out in the 70s, they wouldn't call it Bluegrass, they'd call it Progressive Folk.
I think the whole concept of "Progressive Rock" is something that we have to abandon, it alienates the music from what it actually is. Lumps it into a vague, confusing, and often ignored "genre" of music.
|
|
darincody
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by darincody on Mar 7, 2012 1:07:01 GMT -5
I can get where the last two posts are coming from, but they are also good examples of why I think the term Progressive Rock is a bit of a joke. The qualifications of it are extremely vague, and there are huge varieties of people opinions on what those qualifications are--these completely different bands going in completely different directions in completely different ways and then they are all lumped into the category of "Prog" simply because the one thing they all really had in common was that they were trying to come up with something new. For example, if Bill Monroe had come out in the 70s, they wouldn't call it Bluegrass, they'd call it Progressive Folk. I think the whole concept of "Progressive Rock" is something that we have to abandon, it alienates the music from what it actually is. Lumps it into a vague, confusing, and often ignored "genre" of music. Kai try the actual definition below, then expand, "or progress" from there on your own. For me, one of the dinosaurs, it made quite a bit of difference when it started to occur, growing out of the world of pop, rock and R&B. It generally mean't "you were not going to be dancing" at this concert....you were going to be "watching and listening." The label became or "progressed"..... maybe a better word is "degenerated" into a selling tag. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_rock"Progressive rock (also referred to as prog rock or prog) is a subgenre of rock music[1] that developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s as part of "a mostly British attempt to elevate rock music to new levels of artistic credibility."[2] John Covach, in Contemporary Music Review, says that many thought it would not just "succeed the pop of the 1960s as much as take its rightful place beside the modern classical music of Stravinsky and Bartók."[3] Progressive rock bands pushed "rock's technical and compositional boundaries" by going beyond the standard rock or popular verse-chorus-based song structures. The Oxford Companion to Music states that progressive rock bands "...explored extended musical structures which involved intricate instrumental patterns and textures and often esoteric subject matter."[4] Additionally, the arrangements often incorporated elements drawn from classical, jazz, and later world music. Instrumentals were common, while songs with lyrics were sometimes conceptual, abstract, or based in fantasy. Progressive rock bands sometimes used "concept albums that made unified statements, usually telling an epic story or tackling a grand overarching theme."[2] Notice Board member/ guitarist and teacher John Covach is quoted there.... If you don't like labels......it's OK not to use them. I try to avoid them myself. People get lazy using quick labels. Happy motoring! Darin |
|
|
|
Post by Willie on Mar 7, 2012 1:20:10 GMT -5
My 2 cents:
Love GG. One of the greatest bands to release a record period.
When I was in 11th grade living in the LA suburbs my English teacher suggested I check them out. I bought Three Friends on the still-novel CD format. I gave it a spin and my 16 year old ears were appalled/terrified. By 17and1/2 i' d acclimatizced and realized this was a brilliant album. Freakin' genius.
Comparing Tull and GG though is like comparing Chekhov and Tolstoy. They're from the same country and they're both both brilliant, but that's pretty much where their similarities end.
Last year i passed up the chance to see "3 Friends" live in Tokyo with Kerry Minnear. sigh... a once in a life time mistake probably. oh well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jethro Tull FTW on Mar 7, 2012 14:27:19 GMT -5
Wow. I had no idea any of them still toured. I assume they were playing GG music.
|
|
Prompter
Ethnic Piano Accordian-ist
Posts: 113
|
Post by Prompter on Mar 11, 2012 9:52:20 GMT -5
I love Gentle Giant, my favourite albums are Acquiring the Taste and Octopus.  |
|
kaibailey
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by kaibailey on May 18, 2012 11:15:44 GMT -5
My 2 cents: Love GG. One of the greatest bands to release a record period. When I was in 11th grade living in the LA suburbs my English teacher suggested I check them out. I bought Three Friends on the still-novel CD format. I gave it a spin and my 16 year old ears were appalled/terrified. By 17and1/2 i' d acclimatizced and realized this was a brilliant album. Freakin' genius. Comparing Tull and GG though is like comparing Chekhov and Tolstoy. They're from the same country and they're both both brilliant, but that's pretty much where their similarities end. Last year i passed up the chance to see "3 Friends" live in Tokyo with Kerry Minnear. sigh... a once in a life time mistake probably. oh well. I agree. Very hard to compare the two musically. Both of them pushed the envelope with their musical techniques at times and weren't satisfied with the four chord singer songwriter format. The sound is very different for two bands who are so often compared and/or categorized together. I probably said this before in this thread, but GG was a hit and miss band to me. That's just the nature of experimentation I think. When they missed it sounded really weird, when they hit they were unreal. |
|
kaibailey
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by kaibailey on May 18, 2012 11:33:01 GMT -5
I can get where the last two posts are coming from, but they are also good examples of why I think the term Progressive Rock is a bit of a joke. The qualifications of it are extremely vague, and there are huge varieties of people opinions on what those qualifications are--these completely different bands going in completely different directions in completely different ways and then they are all lumped into the category of "Prog" simply because the one thing they all really had in common was that they were trying to come up with something new. For example, if Bill Monroe had come out in the 70s, they wouldn't call it Bluegrass, they'd call it Progressive Folk. I think the whole concept of "Progressive Rock" is something that we have to abandon, it alienates the music from what it actually is. Lumps it into a vague, confusing, and often ignored "genre" of music. The label became or "progressed"..... maybe a better word is "degenerated" into a selling tag. That's how I feel. I can understand the reason for the term coming about in the first place, and maybe it was fairly applicable for a couple years, but in my opinion it just alienates the music. Something that is extremely artistic, pioneering, and very good can be called "Prog" and then be either conciously or subconciously passed off as a mere study of a subgenre. I just feel like the idea rock music that offers a study of what isn't conventionally studied in rock music is too amorphous to be given it's own genre. And in classifying it as Progressive Rock, it stagnates the actual social or musical progression it has to offer, because it is already categorized and filed. I don't need a definition of Progressive Rock, I'm very familiar with the genre, I understand why the term exists, it's not that I can't grasp it, I just don't think its a very "progressive" term. ;D |
|
darincody
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by darincody on May 18, 2012 11:48:00 GMT -5
My 2 cents: Love GG. One of the greatest bands to release a record period. When I was in 11th grade living in the LA suburbs my English teacher suggested I check them out. I bought Three Friends on the still-novel CD format. I gave it a spin and my 16 year old ears were appalled/terrified. By 17and1/2 i' d acclimatizced and realized this was a brilliant album. Freakin' genius. Comparing Tull and GG though is like comparing Chekhov and Tolstoy. They're from the same country and they're both both brilliant, but that's pretty much where their similarities end. Last year i passed up the chance to see "3 Friends" live in Tokyo with Kerry Minnear. sigh... a once in a life time mistake probably. oh well. I agree. Very hard to compare the two musically. Both of them pushed the envelope with their musical techniques at times and weren't satisfied with the four chord singer songwriter format. The sound is very different for two bands who are so often compared and/or categorized together. I probably said this before in this thread, but GG was a hit and miss band to me. That's just the nature of experimentation I think. When they missed it sounded really weird, when they hit they were unreal. I think where they cross musically is 1973. GG opened for Tull in 72 and they liked each other personally and musically. After that GG released Power and the Glory then Free Hand, which compared to their earlier output, moved more towards a Tull sound. The next Tull album was the more complex, syncopated and experimental.... A Passion Play. Ian also expanded his on stage instruments, the soprano and sapranino sax, something he was using pretty extensively btw on the 2nd side of TAAB. The onstage multi instrumentalism of GG was an impressive thing. Darin |
|
Zombywoof
Ethnic Piano Accordian-ist
Weird Music Fanatic
Posts: 192
|
Post by Zombywoof on May 18, 2012 14:17:17 GMT -5
Just a phenomenal band. Favorites {in no order):
Peel the Paint
Alucard
Isn't it Quiet and Cold?
Advent of Panurge
Knots
Runaway
Cogs in Cogs
The Face
His Last Voyage
Just the Same
Pantagruel's Nativity
The Moon is Down
House, the Street, and the Room
Experience
In a Glass House
And a bunch of others...
|
|
|
|
Post by Preston Platform on May 19, 2012 17:42:53 GMT -5
enjoying this GG thread nice one
|
|
Zombywoof
Ethnic Piano Accordian-ist
Weird Music Fanatic
Posts: 192
|
Post by Zombywoof on May 22, 2012 17:35:54 GMT -5
Speaking of Gentle Giant, has anyone seen this yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by madjack1959 on Jul 19, 2017 19:53:22 GMT -5
GENTLE GIANT
Acquiring the Taste 1971
Three Friends 1972
Octopus 1973
In a Glass House 1973
The Power and The Glory 1974
Free Hand 1975
Interview 1976
The Missing Piece 1977
The Official Live Gentle Giant 1977
Giant for a Day 1978
Civilian 1980
are what I have on vinyl. Octopus is where I came on board with their style, and have been digging them ever since. Money's always tight, otherwise, I'd be actively seeking out what I don't have.
|
|
enjoy.
