He was talking of his technical abilties. maybe you should buy ears and eyes?

Although I have never read this remark from Emerson before if it is true I am a little disappointed with him.

 

It also begs the question of who is says "...without Eno their two early masterpieces (self-titled debut and For your pleasure) wouldn't have happened. "

 

It also begs the question of where this is "often stated" because in 40 years I've never seen it stated.

 

It also begs the question of what does the OP know of how much sound was treated by Eno on those first two albums.

 

It also begs the question of how Eno could do any Moog-extravaganza when the synth used was an VCS3.

 

It also begs the question of how much Eno's influence was on the style of Roxy Music visually and how important that was to the early fame and fortune of Roxy Music.

 

It also begs the question of how closely the OP has listened to those first two Roxy albums if he cannot detect Eno's "unique approach to sound" in every track and not just Bogus Man.

 

It also begs the question of why Stranded and Country Life are soo different from Roxy Music and For Your Pleasure.

Maybe what was meant was the band decided to retain the experimental electronica edge after Eno left.

Moogtron III wrote: Too bad Eno was fired from RM. His Enossification was fabulous on early Roxy. They never sounded that good anymore after Eno left. In my ever so humble opinion, of course  There's more than virtuosity to keyboardists. Eno knew about atmosphere, which was great.

 

I thought the case was that he quit because he wanted to be his own boss, but he might've ended up going anyway had he tried to stay, due to a deteriorating relationship with Ferry.

Just a joke, indirectly setting up the question : Who cares what Kieth Emerson thinks, especialy what he thinks about Eno. As long as we got no link to what he did say, its difficult to comment on it.

Eno's way of thinking music is what makes him special. Very special.

He never pretended that he was a great keyboard player or singer, if/when he needs tech. skill, he get help from others.

Or even more often, its people with tech skill's, that ask Eno, to help make interesting music, from those skills they got.  

Really?

Dayvenkirq wrote: Moogtron III wrote: Too bad Eno was fired from RM. His Enossification was fabulous on early Roxy. They never sounded that good anymore after Eno left. In my ever so humble opinion, of course  There's more than virtuosity to keyboardists. Eno knew about atmosphere, which was great. Fired? I thought he quit. [pulling my hair.]

I read somewhere he was fired. I read that in an interview from a Dutch journalist, Jip Golsteijn, with Bryan Ferry in the 1970's. Golsteijn asked Ferry: why did you fire Eno? and Ferry turned pale and said: 'Next question, please'. Golsteijn didn't want to ask anymore questions. Years later Golsteijn arranged another interview with Ferry, asked the same question and then Ferry said smiling: 'What an interesting question'

But now I don't know what to believe. It was said that Ferry didn't want a soloist next to him, but when I hear now that Eno didn't play keyboards... Amazing

^ I believe you could actually hook up a keyboard to a VCS3, which is what Eno used to work with.

As far as I know, Ferry played the Hohner piano and (I think) the Mellotron.

Eno soloing? I don't think Eno knows how to play a single instrument.

 

I think that those words were mean, and not quite with it.

 

Eno was very much a part of the schools at the time that would be later called "minimalists" or even "avant-garde", whereas Keith was nowhere near that. Eno was not interested in showing off the arpeggios on stage and then have the organ fly all over his head! I would suggest that Eno was much more interested in the SOUND itself, than he was in the notes, that supposedly made Keith a better, or more technical musician. Comparing Eno to a classically minded rock'n'roller is like night and day, bad and good, and genius or stupid!

 

MagicMoo wrote: ... Now it's often stated, that without Eno their two early masterpieces (self-titled debut and For your pleasure) wouldn't have happened. Although I like his gimmickry (e.g. on Bogus Man), ...

 

Silly discussion. You have no criteria for stating that this could not have happened in a different combination than it was created. However, it was a time for new sounds, effects and experiments, and Eno had the opportunity to try it with a rock band, and it worked out fine. The rest is not important ... and sometimes is an abuse of the priviledge and the experience itself ...

 

MagicMoo wrote: ... The single point that's distinguishing Eno's approach to music and therefore the main ingredient for his solo-career, is his unique approach to sound(s), which for Roxy Music imo is not that important. ...

 

That would be incorrect, because the sounds made sense in the first two albums. It might not have been as important from the 3rd album on, as they might have wanted a more cohesive/commercially accepted sound, so they would not be one of those ... that never got anywhere.

 

I believe, that Bryan has stated that he thought they needed to get stronger, not stranger!

 

And lastly ... I have never heard, in any conversations, Bryan say anything bad about Eno at all ... and he has great respect for the impressive and insane history of work that Eno has put together over the years after Roxy Music, which obviously showed that Eno was a different person that was not designed to be a rock musicians playing the same scales every night for your delectation!

 

Eno does not deserve to be thought of as some idiot that did not know music, because all he wanted to do was twist the knobs and make sounds. He would not have been with Roxy Music if his musicianship was not up to snuff or above those around him ... he probably knew music better than them all, or he would likely have a real hard time doing things with the many people that he has worked with ... think about it!

 

In some ways, and Bryan accepts this, Roxy Music and the rock thing was limited ... to eventually have to do a song for money or single that gives you some more freedom and money for your abilities and desires. Eno, for all intents and purposes, does not have to have any music company pressure or bother, when it comes to the work. It would not come out at all, if it did not sell, or be loved as much as it has been over the years.

 

So if you want to compare Eno to rock'n'roll, you are in the wrong building ... the rest room and the groupies are over there! I would rather spend my time with "Julie With..." anyday ... and know about the intelligence, the beauty, and what makes the music shine! ... and of course, Bryan is no slouch in that area either with some magnificent work of his own!

One of my all-time favorite Fripp solos, check it out!  I did this song live with my band Casual Crowbar (I sound quite a bit like Eno when I sing), but man, I couldn't touch this guitar solo!!  Still workin' on it!!  

...so much,i named my 1st cat Eno!

at one time or another?

It seemed like everyone was playing

with every one!

I can only speak for the music i listen to!

Fripp/King Crimson ...etc. etc.

We really should think of that when we discuss,

members,groups,good or bad,right or wrong, ...etc. etc.

Personally? years ago? i was surprised when i discovered they did that?

...hey? ...but i never told no one to change. ...gettin the picture?

Thanx!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rONasb9H24Y&feature=related" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rONasb9H24Y&feature=related

 

 

 

It's hard to take that people think that Eno does not know music or can't play it. I seriously doubt that he would have ended up with the bunch of folks that show up on his albums and the stuff with Robert Fripp, although I would think that Robert for once might have said ... I don't care what you do, and I will just add to it, or you can add to what I do ... which is not something that he can do with King Crimson, because that is the one band that paid the bills for a long time and he has stated that! 

The only real question, ever, about the whole thing was ... is Brian Eno, really Brian Jones? But who cares ... his work is great, and the other Brian never got the chance to do what this one did ... and he had a great start with the Pipes of Pan album ... but not sure that anyone has heard that here!

 

This is from http://music.hyperreal.org/artists/brian_eno/interviews/downbeat79.htm" rel="nofollow - a 1979 lecture he gave in New York :

 

 

 

Musicians are some of the worst, and most fickle folks ... it may be that in 1970 some band decided to pick up a goon in outfits to flip knobs ... and not play music for an hour and a half. It's possible, and in fact, we know that this was done in Germany and other places. We probably can say that Damo Suzuki probably does not write or read music either ... but no one is sitting here and not thinking tht Can is not progressive, because of it!

 

Today, this simply won't do, but then, most DJ's nowadays are as music as the nearest bathroom and its various spigots ... so what the heck! If Faust says, it's music, and so does Eno ... then it's music!

 

.......

 

I'm reading some stuff on Eno, right now ... and I was about to post that and retract my words somewhat, or say them differently. I have a couple of things, including one of his interviews with Keyboard Magazine some 20+ years ago (I'll recheck date /// I'll post when I'm done),  where he talks about experimental music. The funny thing, is there was nothing in there that suggested he would know or not know music! And he is being interviewed on a magazine that is known for its musicians! He might not have known music ... but he knew ... a synthesizer ... and how to use it ... which most folks didn't! Or at least he made it seem like he knew what to do with the VCS3. Only a handfull of folks could be said to have that ability at the time ... probably almost none of them mixed up with music, except maybe Keith Emerson, and even then ... what he did do was mostly Moog, I believe and derivatives from it. The Moog, was more of a keyboard, than the VCS3 was I would think!

 

I think he does. I do think, however,  that he had, by that time, taken up the same type of thing that Krautrock started with ... no concepts or ideas ... just flow with the feeling, and I'm not sure that in itself is not a valid musical idea ... it might not be in the original/conceptual/written form ... that says you have to be have the music written first before it is considered "music" ... meaning experimental and improvised is not considered music ... which eats up a lot of jazz, in my book! How about that ... all of a sudden we would be critical about the "type" of stuff that a kitchen spoon can bring out ...

 

I do not have issues with that, though. I have always followed the music by its color and feeling and not the notes, which is (obviously) what not a lot of people do. Thus someone doing this, or even the folks that make up Faust, or the early folks for New, Kraftwerk and such, none of them had to know music per se, and even many write ups have suggested that neither did Amon Duul folks at the start, or Cosmic Couriers or any of its derivatives. But I doubt that those that were a part of the Berlin Conservatory and they were also creating experiments, no different than Eno's ... but they knew music, and were intentionally ignoring it. Eno might as well ... and we wouldn't necesarily know it ... but his sense of timing and appreciation for a "moment" in any of his work ... is above and beyond any conceptual ideas that we can devise and I'm not sure that anyone can really understand his work. I do think that the likes of Art Bears and many others were slightly towards the same school of experience/experiment, and then we can go check out what Robert Wyatt is doing these days, and I wonder if what my 6 year old child is as good as Robert is, now! ... it challenges everyone's perception of what music is ... in our minds. Is what Robert does any different? It's musical we know, but it is going almost totally anti-music. No different than what he did for fun to get the point across to a stuffed up doll and audience in front of some dignitaries ignoring The Soft Machine ... just do an ABC ... and watch everyone turn around and notice it! All of a sudden -- this is great music! It's the same "irrational", kid instinct. And I always thought that the whole Sex Pistols thing was the extreme form of it all, except that it had already been done in NY for at least a year prior with the likes of New York Dolls, Ramones and  Iggy and the Stooges ... !!! All of them were playing to the concept that ... I don't care what music is ... but today, it's considered ok, now that we're de-sensitized to it.

 

Is this any different? ... nope! Again ...we recognize one "style" and the brashness it was done with ... but not what brought the work alive in the first place ... which was a rebelious attitude towards ... "the corporate dungeon" as Iggy calls it.

 

Again, I consider Eno, one of the free-form folks ... and I don't care if anyone calls it music or not. But no one will sit here and say he doesn't belong ... and how about that ... a wrench in the works that really eats up the "progressive" definition! That's not what we're looking for, or want!

 

There are hundreds of ways for me to get to London and have a cup of coffee, tea or whiskey with Dean or anyone else ... but how I get there, could surprise them! Or take the easiest and fastest road to simplicity ... one flight to Heathrow! Most music is that easy flight ... there is no mystery and expectancy or desire or anything else that comes with it anymore ... and folks like Eno ... it's a breath of fresh air ... and for once, even the comment is on par with the music!

 

Don't we all ... but I don't think that we worried about what it was called, did we? ... I didn't! Neither did Eno, I'm sure!

What what was called? The music notation and theory? - sure I did - I'm fascinated by that stuff. Or do you mean the music itself? Yeah, I called it music though some would beg to differ - and yeah if I made something that sounded vaguely neo-classical I called it neo-classical and if I made something electronic I called it electronic and if I made something that was ambient then I called it ambient, and why not? If I want people to listen to it (which for a while I did) then it seems pretty sensible to me to describe it to them in some way at least so they'll want to hear it. If I paint a picture of the view from my house over the fields to Winchester in watercolours then I'll call it a watercolour landscape - and why not? That's what it is after all, I don't see much point in calling it 'a progressive expression into the light transmission qualities of Hampshire air as captured in the fleeting moment of pigment-load brush as it skips across the dampend page' when what it is is just a watercolour painting of a landscape... and just calling it 'painting' isn't very helpful to anyone. Eno may have (claimed to have) invented the term Ambient, but he then went on to qualify it as 'audible wallpaper'.

 

And you ... hard to believe ... as anti-music (in the conventional commercial sense) as I am ... that you have not seen or know that I go for things that no one else does ... all experimental, and a lot of this "ambient" stuff was just that!

 

And if you would like to share it with someone that actually appreciates that stuff ... I'll gladdly listen, btw ... as opposed to others here that will probably tell you ... Dean ... that's not progressive!

  

Dean wrote: ... I don't see much point in calling it 'a progressive expression into the light transmission qualities of Hampshire air as captured in the fleeting moment of pigment-load brush as it skips across the dampend page' ...

 

What a magnificent title! ... better than most progressive titles we list! Ohh wait ... yours, speaks a truth that our group does not like to discuss ... reality!

 

The 50th album I released can be found in full here: http://www.last.fm/music/The+Cacophony+Of+Light/Pilgrim" rel="nofollow - www.last.fm/music/The+Cacophony+Of+Light/Pilgrim  

And the 51st here: http://www.last.fm/music/The+Cacophony+Of+Light/Stateless" rel="nofollow - www.last.fm/music/The+Cacophony+Of+Light/Stateless  

 

...neither are "ambient", I stopped making ambient music a long time before those were recorded.

moshkito wrote:    Dean wrote: ... I don't see much point in calling it 'a progressive expression into the light transmission qualities of Hampshire air as captured in the fleeting moment of pigment-load brush as it skips across the dampend page' ...   What a magnificent title! ... better than most progressive titles we list! Ohh wait ... yours, speaks a truth that our group does not like to discuss ... reality!

 

Please, I implore you, stop guessing what the group (whoever that is) does and does not like to discuss - we discuss this crap all the time. People are getting too hung-up on this musicology categorising pigeonholing genre-fication kick - it's not that important and we really don't fret about it that much - it is a small convenience to give something a name so we can share a common language.

 

Practically every artist is unique and every album is different from any other album - even a tribute band doing covers is not the original band and the versions they do are not identical to the original versions, that's why we can call them "tributes" and "covers" ... we are using a common language (vocabulary) so we all know what we are talking about ... (Yet you would not call the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra a L.v. Beethoven tribute band that does cover versions of the Pastoral Symphony because the vocabulary is different)

 

We can be really silly about this and make each and every artist a sole member of their own subgenre (hence my 'a progressive expression into the light transmission qualities of Hampshire air as captured in the fleeting moment of pigment-load brush as it skips across the dampend page'' joke) or we be really silly about this and just call it "music" regardless of whether it is complex or simple, jazz or rock, underground or commercial. Or we can be sensible and accept that a name is just a name and not a description - Progressive Rock is a name for a bunch of music that fits some vague idea, it is not a description of what that music is alleged to do (ie progress). Prog Rock does not have to be progressive and music that is progressive is not always Prog Rock.

 

 

It can ... easily! When you can pick up singing, off anywhere, anytime, there are a lot of bands that would love to have folks like that ... even a lead singer. I'm guessing that he was picked up for backing vocals and when he could add little bits and pieces that helped th emusic some, they allowed it ... and it helped get the attention to the band, by the way he dressed did his thing on stage, I imagine.

I hadn't either. Wanted to wait and see if you did.