Is Camel a "Canterbury" band?

There's definitely a unique kind of style or sound to that scene or whatever you wanna call it, that's why when someone says "that band has a canterbury sound" everyone knows what to expect.

I've always though Camel were symphonic prog with some Canterbury overtones. ...as Holy Moly pointed out.

Edited by dr wu23 - January 11 2014 at 11:57

Some of the uptempo instrumental sections of Moonmadness are Canterbury related...but very little is but proving to be more dominet on Rain Dances. Self explanatory because Sinclair who is a Canterbury artist sings and plays bass on Rain Dances. Breathless has an instrumental that is somewhat canterbury related and it's called "The Sleeper". However it's more reminiscent of Happy the Man's style of composition. As everyone knows....Kit Watkins from H.T.M. worked with Camel on 1 album only and one of Watkins compositions turned up on Nude. Happy the Man are only slightly Canterbury influenced , carrying a style of their own more or less. A few pieces from Mirage are Canterbury sounding.....but Camel went for the style and sound of "The White Rider", "Lady Fantasy" , and The Snow Goose which all are very distant from a Canterbury groove.

steve2603 wrote: Only just discovered these guys and I'm loving it. Listened to Mirage and Moonmadness, both brilliant. Where do I go next?

steve2603 wrote: Sweet, I'll get on that now. Only recently getting back into some prog, I've tried modern stuff but nothing's really struck me yet (apart from Kayo Dot), and Camel seem to have a Genesis like tightness which kills. Nice, dreamy voice too, it's the generic vocals in modern prog that turns me off.

HolyMoly wrote: I'll just add to my prior comment and make it clear that although i see Camel and Canterbury as "related", i don't mean it in the formal PA sense, wherein such descriptions are often seen as a clarion call for a new genre category. No, no. They're related in that they share some history, and a little bit of their sound. I'm aware Camel were not part of the "scene" and I do think they're classified appropriately as Symphonic here on PA.

Edited by Mellotron Storm - January 11 2014 at 15:30

steve2603 wrote: lazland wrote: steve2603 wrote: Sweet, I'll get on that now. Only recently getting back into some prog, I've tried modern stuff but nothing's really struck me yet (apart from Kayo Dot), and Camel seem to have a Genesis like tightness which kills. Nice, dreamy voice too, it's the generic vocals in modern prog that turns me off. Not all vocals in modern prog are generic I would suggest you have a trawl through the top albums list for all years. Have a look at the collabs reviews, and you will soon see which of these you share a musical taste with. From there, you will be able to pick some great modern stuff. I was bought up on classic prog in the 1970's. I get so much of a thrill, though, from listening to great modern stuff as well. Good luck Yeah, I didn't meant to generalise, just the stuff I've encountered so far hasn't grabbed me as startlingly as the old guys. I will do, anything particular you'd recommend?

Sagichim wrote: Aussie-Byrd-Brother wrote: No - Not a Canterbury band Yes - On some of the earlier albums, many similarities like the same fuzzy organs, jazzy elements, etc! Also the connection with taking in members from Caravan, etc. I Agree Mike! I never considered Gong to be Canterbury as well.

Edited by moshkito - January 12 2014 at 10:54

Guldbamsen wrote: I get what you're saying Pedro, and this is very true: Gong were at the core of the scene, but what I think both Sagi and Michael were referring to was their 'sound'. The feel of what many people affectively call the 'Canterbury sound' is much more present in groups like Caravan and Egg, than it ever was in Gong. ...

moshkito wrote: Guldbamsen wrote: I get what you're saying Pedro, and this is very true: Gong were at the core of the scene, but what I think both Sagi and Michael were referring to was their 'sound'. The feel of what many people affectively call the 'Canterbury sound' is much more present in groups like Caravan and Egg, than it ever was in Gong. ...      I'm not sure about that. I think the sound is over-rated, and is there simply because of one instrument, and I think this is my same complaint about some hard music having a label, when all it is, is simply an instrument, or in this last case an EFFECT!   For example, I can appreciate Carla Bley and others that were also in the "scene", and their version of jazzy stuff, that had keyboards, but not necessarily the one "instrument" that made these bands better known.   It's like saying that BAROQUE exists because we hear that silly harpsichord sound, and that's not what "baroque" was all about at all!   I really think we have to get off the fan idea that something has to sound like another for it to be X, or Y, or Z. That is a very facile, and silly description and fails ALL musical definitions, and this brings all this stuff back to where we do not want it ... just pop music. Meaningless pop music! AND, to me, this stuff is far better developed and designed, than most "classical" music in the past 50 years ... but we are not able/capable of making that connection because we only listen to "pop music" and "top ten" and nothing else. Thus, we have to label things in order to know what we "would want" to listen to. It's bad, like saying that I have to look for composers like Stravinsky, because Debussy is too wishy washy for me! And we'll have to find a label for them, too!   You gotta be kidding!

Where did you see anyone saying Canterbury depends on that one instrument?? Come on give me a little more credit than that. It's at least two instruments