Thick as a Brick: Overrated on Progarchives

richardh wrote: 76.53% of it is definitely not overrated

richardh wrote: 76.53% of it is definitely not overrated

let's just stay above the "moral melee", prefer the sink to the gutter, keep our sand-castle virtues, be content to be a doer (rather than a thinker) and lift our pen rather than sheath our sword

moshkito wrote: richardh wrote: ... To be honest you seem to miss the point that must people treat music as something to be enjoyed. You really don't have to appreciate the artists vision to enjoy the music. I just like the sound of a Hammond for the sake of it and not because it speaks to me in some way. Equating music with paintings is just not relevant to the discussion I'm afraid to say.  How sad ... and an important person in PA, that usually has very good comments on music and a lot of the work done here, and you come around ... and pretty much admit that more than half of the music you listen to, you don't pay attention to at all ...

The Dark Elf wrote: HackettFan wrote: The drumming parts on TAAB are underwhelming as it is with most post-Aqualung albums when Clive Bunker was replaced. Either Barriemore Barlow did not know when to put in fleurishes to complement the music or Ian Anderson’s increased domination over the writing produced very dull drum parts.  I read this over a couple of times; unfortunately, the wording didn't change -- and it is still dead wrong. I would suggest that Barlow's contribution added real fire to every album he was on, and that he was actually more technically advanced and powerful than Bunker, who was really good in his own right. Barlow was the perfect complement to the more progressive albums that Tull released after Aqualung. I don't think Bunker could have done it.

Assertion made and response given. I'll throw in the base as well. I don't like the whole rhythm section by and large following Aqualung. Songs From the Wood (the song) is another example of what I consider a dull and uninspired rhythm section. There was an interview at some point (probably in the late mid to late 80s) in which Ian Anderson gave a little light-hearted criticism of Clive Bunker for not being very consistent in keeping time. Obviously for an album-long piece prior to the digital age, this could be an issue. Barlow probably was/is superior in that regard. My criticism was in terms of the writing. That is, the space within an arrangement that the drums occupy. I really don't care if anyone actually agrees. That's my opinion. The real reason I'm following up the post is to pose the question of who was really responsible for the writing of the rhythm section. My understanding is that Ian Anderson was extremely comprehensive in the writing department to include other people's parts. How much leeway and input were others allowed as they entered and exited the band? And specifically, how large was Ian's role in designing the rhythmic aspects of the pieces? This is an open question for anyone who reads this post. My guess is that Ian assumed more control as others exited, but I don't have much deep knowledge. I'd be happy to hear any insightful comments.







Edited by HackettFan - July 21 2019 at 15:31

moshkito wrote: richardh wrote: ... To be honest you seem to miss the point that must people treat music as something to be enjoyed. You really don't have to appreciate the artists vision to enjoy the music. I just like the sound of a Hammond for the sake of it and not because it speaks to me in some way. Equating music with paintings is just not relevant to the discussion I'm afraid to say.  How sad ... and an important person in PA, that usually has very good comments on music and a lot of the work done here, and you come around ... and pretty much admit that more than half of the music you listen to, you don't pay attention to at all ... Comparing it to a painting, was a way to show how folks tend to select bits and pieces and leave behind the rest ... you must really think that no artist out there is intelligent enough to create something ... just because you don't like it! IT obviously has some meaning for its creator/s ... and you don't think that meaning is important or valuable, because you don't like that part! AND, WORSE OF ALL ... THAT THE SOCIAL MEDIA HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL THE ARTIST HE IS FUDGED AND WRONG, SPECIALLY 45 YEARS LATER! It was what it was at the time, and can be explained ... but you appear to be so commercialized (how weird ... and into "progressive music"!), that you can not separate and notice the difference. It's as if you are only looking for approval ratings, because you could not possibly agree with Mosh on the arts and his general respect for them ... every piece in its entirety ... not just a portion of it! That is sad, sick, and I'm not sure that is appreciating the music (or the arts) at all ... there are a lot of things in "progressive" that I am not quite fond at, but at the very least, I have respect for their work and continuity ... and you are basically saying that YES and GENESIS are crap on the basis of one side of an album you did not "get" ... and are not even reading the notes on the album to find out what it is about! I'm now wondering who is more overrated!

 

HackettFan wrote: The drumming parts on TAAB are underwhelming as it is with most post-Aqualung albums when Clive Bunker was replaced. Either Barriemore Barlow did not know when to put in fleurishes to complement the music or Ian Anderson’s increased domination over the writing produced very dull drum parts.

M27Barney wrote: Eh. Moshkito...why use so many words. You tend to overread every post and your responses are so post modernist that you are probably a WUM (wind up merchant). You are the spinal-tap poster and probably the archetypal prog connoisseur that the music industry always quotes to enforce its anti prog snobbery...

Most every time the words "I like Side One better than Side Two" are spoken, the album is probably overrated. For me, that can be said as Thick' wanders on the second side and loses much of its steam because of it. Not as go to as its successor.

dougmcauliffe wrote: mini rant here I will never understand why this album is so highly rated, its ranked at number 3. That means that its supposed to be better than Wish you were Here, Court of the Crimson King, Foxtrot, Animals, Red, Pawn Hearts, and several other legendary prog albums. Its not a bad album or anything but to me its not even in the same league as most the top 50. Every other album in we'll say the top 20, has awesome soaring highs. TAAB is filled with several forced transitions and I just cant fathom how it could be top 3. 4 Star album Please tell me i'm not alone in this Since i'm speaking of this, I'll also throw in that I think Moving Pictures is overrated on PA, certainly not better than Hemispheres or Farewell to Kings. Side one is very very good, but side two is mostly quite dull specifically the last two tracks.