Jazz/fusion of the Soft Machine
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17004
Printed Date: April 26 2024 at 19:34
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Jazz/fusion of the Soft Machine
Posted By: The Wizard
Subject: Jazz/fusion of the Soft Machine
Date Posted: January 05 2006 at 11:57
|
Many times people bash the Soft Machine for becoming a straitforward Jazz/fusion band after they played psychedelia. While I do prefer the early softs, the fusion albums are really good, and imo have a certain intensity that is more 'rock' that the first three. Anyone agree?
-------------  
|
Replies:
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: January 05 2006 at 14:21
What is a straightforward "jazz/fusion band"? Especially when the Machine effectively were the UK/European pioneers in the genre. In fact listening to two European fusion albums today, the forthcoming No Jazz and Garcias-Fons Trio's Arcoluz albums, and nothing in these is straight forward.  |
The Wizard wrote:Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: January 05 2006 at 17:00
^ that's actually a really good question.  -------------
|
Posted By: Hendrix828
Date Posted: January 05 2006 at 18:14
|
Well the 70's Softs are good if you're into fusion. But to me,after Wyatt left,they became a straight Jazz group,barely even fusion. Listen to their Berlin Jazztage show from late 71 (a bootleg
Wyatt should of took the "Soft Machine" name with him when he left |
) just right after Wyatt left,and I consider that more jazz than fusion. It was obvious before they even strated work on Third,that Hopper and Ratledge wanted to become a more jazz based group. It really became obvious when they even let Wyatt stop singing and turned "Moon In June" into a complete instrumental in the later Wyatt period.
That's my 2 centsPosted By: NetsNJFan
Date Posted: January 05 2006 at 20:11
|
I think their albums are all pretty good, especially the early wyatt period and jenkins period ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: January 05 2006 at 20:20
1971 was a year of significant experimentation and line-up variations for the Softs, so sampling a boot made of one concert would only be typical of their music at that moment - for instance one line-up was uniquely assembled for a single BBC radio recording . Check out Soft Machine BBC 1971 - 1974 to show the variety of changes and style- also read Graham Bennett's biog of the band. |
Posted By: timothy leary
Date Posted: January 05 2006 at 20:24
| the soft machine of the first three albums are the only real soft machineas an american head of the 6o`s and early 70`s amidst san fran bands like quicksilver the dead jefferson airplane we didn`t really get king crimson and soft machine i remember what got me about soft machine was robert wyatt`s voice ingrained so deep that when i matured and settled down later and played soft machine again that voice jumped out right to the front are there older americans on the site who would agree the american head of the 6o`s was not ready for soft machine i would say for me soft machine really died when it lost that voice |
Posted By: Zac M
Date Posted: January 05 2006 at 21:34
|
I hate all the Jenkins-era bashing. Things had to change, Wyatt left,
it is was inevitable. I REALLY ENJOY the latter-period albums,
especially Softs. Sure, it's different, but you can't keep playing the same stuff, you gotta progress hence the term "Progressive." I don't think Bundles is anywhere as good as Softs. I even find myself listening to Land of Cockayne more than Bundles. By the way, if any of you latter-period fans haven't heard Nucleus, you should. There, you can see the transformation of Soft Machine, seeing as many of the members of Nucleus went on to form later Softs lineups. Allan Holdsworth even started playing with Nucleus before Bundles on the Belladonna album. If you're interested, PM me for more suggestions, information, and recommendations, although I have to say that Elastic Rock, the first Nucleus album, is the best place to start exploring the band. Jenkins did a lot of composing and writing on the album, whereas Carr did not become the true "figure-head" (although in reality, he was) until Solar Plexus. I could go on forever....  .....Thanks for starting a topic I am excedingly interested in  ------------- "Art is not imitation, nor is it something manufactured according to the wishes of instinct or good taste. It is a process of expression." -Merleau-Ponty |
Posted By: NetsNJFan
Date Posted: January 05 2006 at 22:16
|
thank you for that I am big fan of SM (75-78) and Nucleus, and overshadowed band -------------
|
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: January 06 2006 at 07:56
I felt the Holdsworth connection is a mite tenuous, since he played/recorded with Tempest in the same year - I reckon he was paying his dues, finding work when offered as a jobbing musician based in London. (As a parallel, Chris Spedding also played guitar for Nucleus, but ends up inventing the sex Pistols first recorded riff, forms his own punk band and - jump forward 25 years - is most recently known as a recruit to a touring Roxy Music................) |
Posted By: Froth
Date Posted: January 06 2006 at 12:31
|
I dont have any of the Softs albums after Third but they sound really good. How can any band with players like John marshall, Karl jenkins, Hugh Hopper and of course the mighty Ratledge go wrong? Im definantley gong to get hold of 4, 5 and 6, ... having said that though, i heard bits from bundles and it sounds god awful |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: January 06 2006 at 13:58
|
I know that after Wyatt left the band is not classic soft machine music any more, but if you are a fusion/jazz fan you got to love their later masterpieces 4/5/6/7/bundle and soft these albums are essential if you love fusion. |
Posted By: eugene
Date Posted: January 06 2006 at 18:32
|
My favorite album is Bundles by all means!!!! ------------- carefulwiththataxe |
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: January 06 2006 at 19:39
| Strangely, I know a lot of people who much prefer their post-wyatt fusion stuff. I was under the impression that liking Vols 1 and 2 best put me in the minority of proggers... |
Posted By: Tholomyes
Date Posted: January 06 2006 at 20:20
|
I prefer much more the jazz/fusion "era" or the post-wyatt (only Third) . and I don't really like Volume 1 and 2 wich are their best according to PA. |
Posted By: NetsNJFan
Date Posted: February 08 2006 at 00:28
|
no I II and III are pretty much agreed upon as the "classic" SM albums -------------
|
Posted By: Zac M
Date Posted: February 08 2006 at 00:48
Yes, those are indeed the most essential and classic. The best album post-Third is Softs for me, sheer brilliance, as I probably stated earlier in the thread. ------------- "Art is not imitation, nor is it something manufactured according to the wishes of instinct or good taste. It is a process of expression." -Merleau-Ponty |