Likewise. 

Thank God I chose to study Ancient Greek instead of German!

My favorite thing about these kinds of threads is that it inspires me to go back and listen again, hopefully with deeper appreciation, though sometimes with affirmation of my original feelings.

 

That said, I used to like them more than I do now. I think they peaked with The Man-Machine (1979) and have never matched it.

Hi Cristi - nooo, it's not that, it's what they become. 

Not everything has to make sense. ;-)

If it wasn't for Kraftwerk, electronic music most likely wouldn't exist. Also, Kraftwerk did it best. 

A casio? In 1974?

They were crappy ahead of the crappy curve.

No, it's not "haters go hate" - it's not that simple. From a musical perspective, they are the antithesis of prog rock. Everything is remarkably simple and predictable. Contrast and compare to Tangerine Dream - who are simple enough in places (up until the late 70's).

This is not "haters go hate"  - or "having no idea about the subject. " I think I know what I'm talking about here, having just built a Eurorack modular at component level. 

Kraftwerk used a very simple setup, wrote very simple, populist tunes (at least in later life) - it's basically electronic pop and no longer serious music. It may have been revolutionary in some ways, but just using a synth was deemed "revolutionary" for some bands in the 1970's. Much, much more musically revolutionary stuff came out of Germany in the late 60's and 70's. 

I can play Autobahn with one hand. It's deliberately composed ("no idea about the subject") not to use any of the "difficult black keys". It neither excites or challenges me. I'd say I was just "bored" by it, but all the media circus around it leads me to a conclusion that I "dislike" it. It's really just fluff propped up by marketing. 

If it wasn't for Kraftwerk, electronic music most likely wouldn't exist. Also, Kraftwerk did it best. 

Perhaps reading up on the history of electronic music would be useful, here. ;-)

Very well, your opinion, you explained it well. It was my joke  OK. Still, why do hate them or anything that is in their primary level. Unless they can make huge money for somebody else´s work. Surely they were below the average German prog at the beginning but they were experimental, nevertheless n their own way. They weren´t the brightest of the genre for sure. They may even have tought that they really were progressive, perhaps namely because were using simplest gear. And because of that they may have even been very proud of their work. This of course has nothing to with real gift or creativity. They thought being cool but actually weren´t. Usually naive people think being really good.

I mean, I can play the famous solo of Steve Hackett´s finest, namely "Firth of Fifth" very very good.     

I can copy note by note perfectly but this has nothing to do with real talent, it may actually sound very clumsy to a trained ear and a true musician.   

First, I ain´t no expert on electronic (rock) music either, I just occasionally listen some Tangerine Dream and Klaus Schulze but the first from TD is intorerable, also "Alpha Centauri" is quite boring but their mid-seventies albums are getting interesting...  I never took Kraftwerk so seriously really and wasted no more time with their albums. They turned into electronical pop for sure. Actually they invented "computer rock/pop", music done by machines ? As I said I ain´t do specialist but Kraftwerk were pioneers in programmed/computerized pop ? So they were kinda forerunners on serious computer music, actually funny impression  ? Well, they turned into banality nevertheless.

I gather most folks instantly think of 'The Robots' or something to that effect when they hear Kraftwerk mentioned. I bet they haven't heard this:

I also don't think they created 'krautrock' or electronic music as someone alluded to earlier in the thread.

 

Ok....carry on.

Actually, all the early synthesizer folks were very simplistic ... and things like NEU and many others around them were simply the turning on a knob with effects on it, which was something new at the time ... and today we can buy that effect on a VST, and it cost 3 cents, and in many cases even less.

KRAFTWERK, starting with the Autobahn piece, went on to make what has been described as "commercial music" which differed from the others that took music much more seriously and composed like it, on the synthesizer ... but that is not to say that Vangelis, or Tangerine Dream, never spent 5 minutes turning a knob with different effects, they simply disguised it better as a musical form, instead of just playing child like games with it.

I do not dislike KRAFTWERK, and they deserve their spot, but I would not consider them serious composers like I do TD, KS and many others. Ans yes, I would consider KRAFTWERK pop, but only going back to Autobahn as the earlier stuff was a bit different, even though it already had some pop elements in it.

It was a natural development of the synthesizer ... the easiest one of all to make and do, I suppose we could say. 

In 40 years of playing, I've never been tempted to buy a drum machine. As soon as Kraftwerk switched over to drum machines, well, that was the end of it, really. ;-) (By contrast, TD used a much more complicated method of doing electronic percussion.)

Kraftwerk - even the simplistic stuff they did later, is influential on modern electronic music. That's not to say it was good or revolutionary, but it certainly did condition and form the basis of synthpop and New Wave. Turning the contour down on an early Mini produced a different sound. I have no problems with them doing it - what I have issues with is the total commercialism they sank to, becoming a parody of their former selves. 

Aha, the equipment list is here and suggests they were using a Vox Percussion King in 1973.
http://kraftwerkfaq.hu/equipment.html#equipment

At the same time, TD were using percussive effects on Ricochet, but by basically wiring up a huge Moog modular and using white noise to produce drum effects. Much more complicated. Percussion on Kraftwerk albums tends to be very simple indeed, it's much less so on contemporary TD stuff. Programming a drum machine and patching a Moog modular can not really be compared - the former is dozens of times less difficult than the latter. 

Incidentally, you can still buy analogue drum machines. MFB make something call the Tanzbar. Not my cup of tea, though. 

Interesting. You have a such experience & insight. Fine, I think I get it. So can you tell me that it actually was Kraftwerk who created synthpop and New Wave, not Buggles and alike ? Did Kraftwerk create that very simple and kinda naive style/genre in the late 70´s ? I mean, they simply turned progressive electronic (rock) music into NW ? Don´t get wrong I will not blame anyone, just want to understand the history of the transition from progressive rock music to lesser (sub)genres. Now four decades later I feel that it as comfortably numb.   

That's all analogue above. Matter of fact, the preamps are valve based and there's a valve based oscilloscope there, too. There are another two racks being built - again, valve preamps. All the sound production is done by analogue means: same technology as was being used in 1974. Even down to the sequencers. 

There were not many bands who could affford to do this in the early 70's. A Moog modular cost the equivalent of a house at the time. A friend of mine was offered TD's old Moog - he had the money for either a house or a Moog, he chose the house. ;-)

Now all this stuff is easily affordable. One thing you can thank Kraftwerk for is popularising electronic music: if it hadn't gone mass market, studios would look very different nowadays. 

What´s the difference ? Howe´s and Squire´s disgrace nevertheless. 

And even more haven't heard what is quite possibly, at least it's what I consider, their best work, Live On Radio Bremen 1971. Absolutely f**king killer Sabbath meets Krautrock jams. Unfortunately Kraftwerk don't seem to care about live releases so a lot of good or decent early live recordings are bootlegs even if they have pretty excellent sound like this one. 

Some early Kraftwerk is, indeed, interesting. Why do I dislike them so much ? Well, the problem I have with them is that they're more about marketing themselves and selling a shallow and musically worthless product than they are about actually producing music. They paved the way for shallow synth pop, such as Marc (spit) Almond, OMD, Ultrapox etc etc. That was the musical background I grew up to here in the UK. No wonder I went back a generation, musically. Perhaps I should be thanking them. 

PS Drama. Well, as an album, it had its' moments, as did Tormato, but Yes were more "Not really" at the time. For me, anyway. ;-)

You worship wrong gods.  

The answer lies in yesterday, yes it is very funny yet very serious . Why you blamed me of wrong info about Buggles history as I never said that the Yes men formed Buggles ? Dave said it first and I just believed him blindly. So it´s funny you know exactly my opinion about rock after 1973 (if you really have red my posts), so why you asked my opinion about that NW (or whatever it is) album as you already knew my answer in the first place ? Why waste your precious time as I wouldn´t agree ? Can you explain yourself ?

You gave me missinfo about Buggles´ beginning, these are essential things to understand history. Nevermind.

Can you tell me exactly what kind of gear, analog and digital (amps, effect devices etc. ) Wakeman, Howe & Squire used in studios in 1976-79 ? 

Not that you can ever recreate the sound, even using the same vintage equipment. You could learn "The Star Spangled Banner" backwards, tap Jimi Hendrix on the shoulder at Woodstock, take the guitar off him half way through........ and you still wouldn't sound like him. ;-) 

Tom, you cannot be serious. ;-)

Yes yes... I understand all this, its very difficult to get the very same sound out again. Did the Yes men use any digital equipment recording "Going for the One" and "Tormato", anywhere in the way from gear to recording desk ? This is very important as you understand as well.

I have always liked men wearing proper suits and shoes. Very ´60´s actually, manly. Quite cool, I was afraid it would have been something corny. Rock look but kids´ music. Nice try boys.

True. Birdie Song. Reduces me to psychosis.

I really shouldn't think so. Tormato is about 1978. Going for the one is 1977. Everything is analogue at that stage. ;-) 

Are you sure ? Already in 1973 Robert Fripp uses a Frizzbox/VCS3 Synthesizer with digital Sequencer on "No Pussyfooting" with Brian Eno. Nice KC meets TD feel IMO. So nothing digital really with Yes 1976 - 78 ?

 

I saw them in '98 at the Palladium on their first "comeback" tour after a years-long hiatus. It was a fun night, but I got the feeling (proven by many YT vids) that if you've "seen" them once...

Title track.

"Digital sequencer" just refers to the construction method of the sequencer. It's nothing to do with the audio. The sequencer I'm operating in the clip below has digital electronics. It outputs a variable voltage (so that part of it is analogue) which goes to a synth, in this case, a Moog Minitaur, which is analogue. The synth picks up the voltage and converts this to a note. The audio output from the synth goes to a valve preamp and then into a PC, where delay and flanging effects are added. Yes, there ARE some digital electronics in here, but the audio path is all analogue. The digital side is where an electronic output or input merely has to be ON or OFF. It would not make any sense to design what is essentially an electronic switch which could be ON OFF or INBETWEEN. ;-)

Matter of fact, even the oscilloscope in the clip is analogue. And valve based. I'm just passing the synth output through it to get an idea of what happens when you run square and sawtooth waves at once. ;-)

Take it from someone who does retro analogue albums. And builds his own analogue modular synthesizers. ;-)

Complexity is nothing to do with quality. Neither is simplicity. In fact, it's a logical error to conflate either term.

Quality is to do with good music. In fact, even "quality" is no indicator of "good", if you've read any Robert Pirsig.

By "musically simplistic" I mean "I can't hear any ideas or musicianship" so therefore I don't like Kraftwerk. Personal choice. Music is art, not science, it comes down to personal choice and taste, or lack thereof. 

If you don't like Kraftwerk, fine.  I respect your personal taste and freedom to explore what inspires you.

But in the cause and effect world of music experimentation, Kraftwerk is/are very important.

Its ripple effects have been felt, and love 'em or hate 'em, we wouldn't be at this point in Time and Space without them. 

 

cheers!

I don't like them, others do. They are indeed, influential, but my argument is that their influence has produced a great deal of appalling music. Other people will have a contrary opinion. We don't all have to agree. In fact, if we weren't arguing, it'd show we didn't care. 

In that case, the Birdie Song was "progressive" as well, as nothing like it had been heard before, and it started a whole new genre of music I didn't like. ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jAG9GAqktY

As time went on, these sounds became easier to do and create and repeat ... and now are so simple, even a dummy like me can do many of these on my Arturia V8 software on my computer! But I have to tell you that my friend in 1976 bought a Quadra (ARP I think it was) and I could not get anything out of that ... and it took him over a year before he could do anything on it, other than piddle! 

Maybe Mr. Moog just forgot it. Genius are absent-minded.

To be honest, I never liked them either. Because they are (among a couple of bands/artists) responsible for the decline of (electronic) Prog. They turned it into simple, even banal pop. Too simple music doesn´t reach my soul in anyway. And as I already said, I am only interested in history. They were very influential, unfortunately.

Mosh, you said "Tangerine Dream .... turned a knob with an effect on it" "and disguised it more musically than others", didn't you ? I don't think I misinterpreted that one. ;-)

Thank goodness. Well, I actually knew (smelled) that those Yes albums mentioned can´be any digital but I just wanted an expert to confirm this.

And my thanks to you Dave, now I know much more. This is the best part of PA, to learn new things.

He used it in studio, he used a plenty of different guitars, mandolins etc. Exists a video from "Going for the One" sessions playing one. 

Kraftwerks' Minimoog D was very, very simple. 

If I put anyone in front of a Minimoog and said, right, just to give you an idea..... nearly anyone could make a noise come out within a few minutes. By 1976'ish, the technology had moved on from complicated modulars to more simple "normalised" synths, such as the ARP 2600 and Minimoog. (Incidentally, an ARP Quadra counted as being "ridiculously simple to use"....... ????? )

Normalised means that the synth is internally connected in a logical manner. The oscillators connect to, say, a filter which connects to an amplifier. Connecting this up by hand is a pain but (on modulars) you can connect other modules in (ie ring modulators, Bode filters etc) to create an entirely different sound. With a normalised, "simple" synth such as a Minimoog, that's the way it works and you're stuck with it. 

I'm not trying to upset the Kraftwerk fans here. Honestly. What I'm saying is that without an actual proper understanding of the development of early synths from, say, the late 60's to the mid 70's, you can't understand whether or not Kraftwerk were technically innovative. Sonically ? Well. A new idea which caught on and influenced a lot of bands which came along. But if you say that, you can argue that disco did very much the same in the mid 70's. Or punk. 

I agree fully with the comment that simplicity or complexity is nothing to do with how good a piece of music is, but that's really a throwaway, non specific comment, we're talking about an example here and not an arbitrary rule of thumb - or soundbite. They're just not for me. That's why. If you like them, good for you. 

 

Btw, just watching the Peter Banks Story interview on YouTube. Very interesting stuff. Great player, one of the greats really. RIP

More on Steve's guitar collection here. Turns out he had one or two. 

http://www.amazon.com/Steve-Howe-Guitar-Collection/dp/0879302909

This is...... excellent. Which just goes to show that bands follow fashions (or determine them) and have a half life of interest. 

I was thinking last night why I just can't stand the later Kraftwerk stuff. I think the reason is, as a musician, I'm programmed to listen to music and mentally play along to it in my head. On the later stuff, I just can't imagine myself doing it - there's no base material there. But I could easily imagine myself doing it with the early stuff.