Print Page | Close Window

John Mclaughlin VS Robert Fripp

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics related to progressive music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=84477
Printed Date: December 19 2014 at 23:16
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: John Mclaughlin VS Robert Fripp
Posted By: Varon
Subject: John Mclaughlin VS Robert Fripp
Date Posted: January 25 2012 at 13:39
If you had asked me 4 days ago who was my favorite guitar player I would have said "Robert Fripp" but 3 days ago I've heard the album "Birds of Fire" (+++some other compositions)... and now I'm not so sure...
What about you???



-------------
Would you catch the final words of mine?
Would you catch my words???



Replies:
Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: January 25 2012 at 13:44

McLaughlin.

By far and at every conceivable level, much better.
 


-------------
I have many faults. Being wrong is not one of them.


Posted By: PabstRibbon
Date Posted: January 25 2012 at 13:48
Fripp is the King


Posted By: ninestonesclose
Date Posted: January 25 2012 at 14:15
You can't compare these two like for like... sorry.... both equally brilliant and totally different. Love them both.

-------------
______________
Ade
www.ninestonesclose.com
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Nine-Stones-Close/55419627928


Posted By: colorofmoney91
Date Posted: January 25 2012 at 15:29
These are both guitarists that I've never honestly cared for, but I've listened to both extensively over the past few years. I have to vote Fripp because I really enjoy his ambient work with Eno, which I think is way more interesting that McLaughlin's gnarly indo-jazz guitar-based fusion foolery.

-------------
http://hanashukketsu.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Hanashukketsu


Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: January 25 2012 at 15:31
Robert, (against anyone)


-------------
There is live somewhere in Space, the question is : "are they on Facebook ?"
My blog: http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://tamijo2013.wordpress.com


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 25 2012 at 16:09
Originally posted by ninestonesclose ninestonesclose wrote:

You can't compare these two like for like... sorry.... both equally brilliant and totally different. Love them both.

I was kind of thinking the same thing.  Perhaps we could contrast them.  Perhaps they should do an album together.


-------------


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: January 25 2012 at 16:27
Technically speaking McLaughlin. I'm not considering the composing skill.

-------------
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.


Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: January 25 2012 at 16:28
I like McLaughlin's earlier stuff with Miles, but really don't care for his fusion/corn playing.  Fripp I've liked a lot of what he has done, but the only stuff that is really remarkable IMO is the ambient things he has done


Originally posted by colorofmoney91 colorofmoney91 wrote:

. I have to vote Fripp because I really enjoy his ambient work with Eno, which I think is way more interesting that McLaughlin's gnarly indo-jazz guitar-based fusion foolery.

yeah basically this


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/TullDerGraff" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: progprogprog
Date Posted: January 25 2012 at 17:27
Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Technically speaking McLaughlin. I'm not considering the composing skill.
I assume he meant technically (as I choose McLaughlin too), but if composing were the case then the poll made no sense.


Posted By: akaBona
Date Posted: January 25 2012 at 17:42
fripp


Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: January 25 2012 at 17:45
Fripp for certain.

-------------
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.


Posted By: Wanorak
Date Posted: January 25 2012 at 19:09
McLaughlin is technically much better, but I much prefer the types of music Fripp plays

-------------
A GREAT YEAR FOR PROG!!!


Posted By: BrufordFreak
Date Posted: January 25 2012 at 20:26
I LOVE
Originally posted by colorofmoney91 colorofmoney91 wrote:

These are both guitarists that I've never honestly cared for, but I've listened to both extensively over the past few years. I have to vote Fripp because I really enjoy his ambient work with Eno, which I think is way more interesting that McLaughlin's gnarly indo-jazz guitar-based fusion foolery.
!!!

As Robert himself has said before, McLaughlin expresses so much emotion in every riff, every strum, whereas RF has worked so hard to get out his mind and infuse even an ounce of emotion into his playing. don't get me wrong: I revere Robert Fripp and the astounding contributions he has made to music. I just find, at day's end, I get more enjoyment and value from the emotion coming through JM's playing. 


-------------
Drew Fisher, Second Cloud on the Left Farm
La Farge, Wisconsin


Posted By: Wafflesyrup
Date Posted: January 25 2012 at 21:57
Originally posted by tamijo tamijo wrote:

Robert, (against anyone)


Posted By: Fox On The Rocks
Date Posted: January 25 2012 at 22:01
Both are in my top 10 for guitar players but I'm of course going to with Fripp on this one. I just enjoy his style and sound better.

-------------


Posted By: Slaughternalia
Date Posted: January 25 2012 at 22:34
Mclaughin as a guitar player. Fripp has better compositions methinks tho

-------------
I'm so mad that you enjoy a certain combination of noises that I don't


Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: January 25 2012 at 22:49
Fripp has done some superb subtle work, unique sounds and some powerful stuff as well. But John has mindblowed my mind more times, either with Lifetime, Davis, The Orchetra or solo.

That, of course, if speaking solely as guitarists and not composers.


-------------

http://www.last.fm/user/GordonComstock" rel="nofollow - "For me, music and life are all about style.” Miles Davis(last.fm)


Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: January 26 2012 at 01:26
Originally posted by progprogprog progprogprog wrote:

Originally posted by octopus-4 octopus-4 wrote:

Technically speaking McLaughlin. I'm not considering the composing skill.
I assume he meant technically (as I choose McLaughlin too), but if composing were the case then the poll made no sense.
you assumed correctly


-------------
Curiosity killed a cat, Schroedinger only half.


Posted By: spknoevl
Date Posted: January 26 2012 at 08:26
Fripp has admitted he was so heavily influenced by the Mahavishnu Orchestra to the point that he stopped listening to them so as not to become seduced by the sound. 

-------------
http://martinwebb.bandcamp.com

The notes are just an interesting way to get from one silence to the next - Mick Gooderick


Posted By: thehallway
Date Posted: January 26 2012 at 10:25

Two virtuosos. Both composers. McLaughlin is the better virtuoso, Fripp the better composer. I value composition above anything else in music, so.... Fripp.

In fact, I can't think of a more skilled guitarist than John McLaughlin, and Fripp's writing is not only unique, but some of the best works to come out of the 20th century, in my opinion. I'm looking at the 'Larks' era........ changing the form of what we call 'rock' music, rather than adding Mellotrons to pop songs and calling that progressive (ahem.... Genesis.....).



-------------
http://www.thefreshfilmblog.com/" rel="nofollow">



Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: January 26 2012 at 10:39
Originally posted by ninestonesclose ninestonesclose wrote:

You can't compare these two like for like... sorry.... both equally brilliant and totally different. Love them both.

Agreed. They're both amazingly good, and quite different in style, technique, ability, etc. I can't choose on this one.


Posted By: digdug
Date Posted: January 26 2012 at 11:25
I do enjoy MO and KC but 
neither of these would make my top 10 guitarists



-------------
Prog On!


Posted By: Gandalff
Date Posted: January 26 2012 at 12:18
Guess who!

-------------
A Elbereth Gilthoniel
silivren penna míriel
o menel aglar elenath!
Na-chaered palan-díriel
o galadhremmin ennorath,
Fanuilos, le linnathon
nef aear, sí nef aearon!



Posted By: progprogprog
Date Posted: January 26 2012 at 12:55
Originally posted by thehallway thehallway wrote:

... rather than adding Mellotrons to pop songs and calling that progressive (ahem.... Genesis.....).

Some examples to illustrate your words would be great.Geek


Posted By: thehallway
Date Posted: January 26 2012 at 13:12
Originally posted by progprogprog progprogprog wrote:

Originally posted by thehallway thehallway wrote:

... rather than adding Mellotrons to pop songs and calling that progressive (ahem.... Genesis.....).

Some examples to illustrate your words would be great.Geek

Side 1 of Foxtrot.



-------------
http://www.thefreshfilmblog.com/" rel="nofollow">



Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: January 26 2012 at 13:19
Originally posted by thehallway thehallway wrote:

Originally posted by progprogprog progprogprog wrote:

Originally posted by thehallway thehallway wrote:

... rather than adding Mellotrons to pop songs and calling that progressive (ahem.... Genesis.....).

Some examples to illustrate your words would be great.Geek

Side 1 of Foxtrot.


If Get Em' Out By Friday is pop, geez, PA "got it bad, got it bad" quoting Van Halen. Tongue


-------------

http://www.last.fm/user/GordonComstock" rel="nofollow - "For me, music and life are all about style.” Miles Davis(last.fm)


Posted By: thehallway
Date Posted: January 26 2012 at 13:23

It's chords with vocals..... and neither the chords nor the vocals are innovative (in fact, the lyrics far too embarrassingly bad to be called pop music). Doing it for 8 minutes doesn't make it progressive...... or good.

So, yeah, not pop exactly....... but about as interesting as some pop.



-------------
http://www.thefreshfilmblog.com/" rel="nofollow">



Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: January 26 2012 at 13:24
Originally posted by thehallway thehallway wrote:

It's chords with vocals..... and neither the chords nor the vocals are innovative (in fact, the lyrics far too embarrassingly bad to be called pop music). Doing it for 8 minutes doesn't make it progressive...... or good.

So, yeah, not pop exactly....... but about as interesting as some pop.


Chords with vocals? Ha, you're funny, I like you. Hug


-------------

http://www.last.fm/user/GordonComstock" rel="nofollow - "For me, music and life are all about style.” Miles Davis(last.fm)


Posted By: thehallway
Date Posted: January 26 2012 at 13:25
Originally posted by The Quiet One The Quiet One wrote:

Originally posted by thehallway thehallway wrote:

It's chords with vocals..... and neither the chords nor the vocals are innovative (in fact, the lyrics far too embarrassingly bad to be called pop music). Doing it for 8 minutes doesn't make it progressive...... or good.

So, yeah, not pop exactly....... but about as interesting as some pop.


Chords with vocals? Ha, you're funny, I like you. Hug

err... thanks.



-------------
http://www.thefreshfilmblog.com/" rel="nofollow">



Posted By: Earendil
Date Posted: January 26 2012 at 19:30
McLaughlin is a better player, but Fripp is more original (not that McLaughlin isn't).


Posted By: progprogprog
Date Posted: January 26 2012 at 19:47
Originally posted by thehallway thehallway wrote:

Originally posted by progprogprog progprogprog wrote:

Originally posted by thehallway thehallway wrote:

... rather than adding Mellotrons to pop songs and calling that progressive (ahem.... Genesis.....).

Some examples to illustrate your words would be great.Geek

Side 1 of Foxtrot.

It will make Apollo so angry man, just saying.





p.s Apollo: The god of music, healing, plague, prophecies, poetry, and archery; associated with light, truth and the sun Smile


-------------
Always thinking in extremes.That's my way to beat boredom.


Posted By: progprogprog
Date Posted: January 26 2012 at 19:56
Originally posted by thehallway thehallway wrote:

It's chords with vocals..... and neither the chords nor the vocals are innovative  ...


That's just absurd.It weren't innovative if they mimicked previous bands which isn't true.
Maybe you should define this two words:
1.pop
2.innovation 

However you're somehow right about the lyric. 


p.s As you're in PA for a long time, you've certainly said that before so it may be repetitive for you, why don't you just tell the gist of your thoughts to explain how do you really see prog and what do you expect from a prog song?Wacko
 


Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: January 26 2012 at 19:58
what

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/TullDerGraff" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: January 27 2012 at 01:07
Side 1 of Foxtrot is by and large pop, in terms of structure.   Which is fine if you pretend Supper's Ready doesn't exist.  But Dancing with the moonlit knight is not pop by any stretch of imagination nor are Musical Box or Fountain of Salmacis.  


Posted By: Lark the Starless
Date Posted: January 27 2012 at 01:18
Damn.

I think Fripp takes it. Barely.


-------------


Posted By: spknoevl
Date Posted: January 27 2012 at 07:46
Two great guitarists who come to music from different directions while probably having a similiar goal.  KC were jazz-influenced rock musicians who played music heavily influenced by 20th century classical composers and who were heavy on group improvisation.  MO were rock-influenced jazz musicians who played music heavily influenced by 20th century classical composers and who were heavy on individual improvisation.
 
And how can anyone say Johnny Mac isn't as a good composer as Fripp after hearing Birds of Fire or Apocalypse?
 
Both men broke down musicial barriers and changed our perceptions of what a guitar player should sound like.


-------------
http://martinwebb.bandcamp.com

The notes are just an interesting way to get from one silence to the next - Mick Gooderick


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: January 27 2012 at 08:01
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Side 1 of Foxtrot is by and large pop, in terms of structure.   Which is fine if you pretend Supper's Ready doesn't exist.  But Dancing with the moonlit knight is not pop by any stretch of imagination nor are Musical Box or Fountain of Salmacis.  

Pop in terms of stucture? What tosh. Why is it not rock in terms of structure? This  whole argument is frustrating.


-------------
Coldness doth get away with the badness. http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: January 27 2012 at 08:03
Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Side 1 of Foxtrot is by and large pop, in terms of structure.   Which is fine if you pretend Supper's Ready doesn't exist.  But Dancing with the moonlit knight is not pop by any stretch of imagination nor are Musical Box or Fountain of Salmacis.  

Pop in terms of stucture? What tosh. Why is it not rock in terms of structure? This  whole argument is frustrating.


Hardly any difference in terms of structure between pop and rock (i.e. not prog) anyway.  But in either case, not progressive in terms of structure, if I might put it that way instead. 


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: January 27 2012 at 08:06
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Side 1 of Foxtrot is by and large pop, in terms of structure.   Which is fine if you pretend Supper's Ready doesn't exist.  But Dancing with the moonlit knight is not pop by any stretch of imagination nor are Musical Box or Fountain of Salmacis.  

Pop in terms of stucture? What tosh. Why is it not rock in terms of structure? This  whole argument is frustrating.


Hardly any difference in terms of structure between pop and rock (i.e. not prog) anyway.  But in either case, not progressive in terms of structure, if I might put it that way instead. 

I'd rather you did...or say "simple song structure"

But I disagree either way.LOL


-------------
Coldness doth get away with the badness. http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: January 27 2012 at 08:09
Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Side 1 of Foxtrot is by and large pop, in terms of structure.   Which is fine if you pretend Supper's Ready doesn't exist.  But Dancing with the moonlit knight is not pop by any stretch of imagination nor are Musical Box or Fountain of Salmacis.  

Pop in terms of stucture? What tosh. Why is it not rock in terms of structure? This  whole argument is frustrating.


Hardly any difference in terms of structure between pop and rock (i.e. not prog) anyway.  But in either case, not progressive in terms of structure, if I might put it that way instead. 

I'd rather you did...or say "simple song structure"

But I disagree either way.LOL


Yes, simple song structure is exactly what I had in mind.   As for the second line, well, why am I not surprised! LOL


Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: January 27 2012 at 08:14
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Side 1 of Foxtrot is by and large pop, in terms of structure.   Which is fine if you pretend Supper's Ready doesn't exist.  But Dancing with the moonlit knight is not pop by any stretch of imagination nor are Musical Box or Fountain of Salmacis.  

Pop in terms of stucture? What tosh. Why is it not rock in terms of structure? This  whole argument is frustrating.


Hardly any difference in terms of structure between pop and rock (i.e. not prog) anyway.  But in either case, not progressive in terms of structure, if I might put it that way instead. 

I'd rather you did...or say "simple song structure"

But I disagree either way.LOL


Yes, simple song structure is exactly what I had in mind.   As for the second line, well, why am I not surprised! LOL

Maybe I should listen again but Get em out by Friday has many different passages and can -utlity is Prog for sure isn't it? Watcher of the Skies without Mellotron would be heavy rock.

But if you disagree, Suppers Ready could be viewed as a number of simple songs strung together(with the exceptuion of a few parts)


-------------
Coldness doth get away with the badness. http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: January 27 2012 at 08:41
Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Side 1 of Foxtrot is by and large pop, in terms of structure.   Which is fine if you pretend Supper's Ready doesn't exist.  But Dancing with the moonlit knight is not pop by any stretch of imagination nor are Musical Box or Fountain of Salmacis.  

Pop in terms of stucture? What tosh. Why is it not rock in terms of structure? This  whole argument is frustrating.


Hardly any difference in terms of structure between pop and rock (i.e. not prog) anyway.  But in either case, not progressive in terms of structure, if I might put it that way instead. 

I'd rather you did...or say "simple song structure"

But I disagree either way.LOL


Yes, simple song structure is exactly what I had in mind.   As for the second line, well, why am I not surprised! LOL

Maybe I should listen again but Get em out by Friday has many different passages and can -utlity is Prog for sure isn't it? Watcher of the Skies without Mellotron would be heavy rock.

But if you disagree, Suppers Ready could be viewed as a number of simple songs strung together(with the exceptuion of a few parts)


To me, Get em out and Can Utility are sort of like Love Lies Bleeding, so not quite there.  In Supper's Ready, the 'songs' seamlessly blend and segue into each other except for a few moments where the music seems unrelated around the 10 minute mark.  And rather than developing in a cyclical pattern, which is what pop is, it shows more linear development with effective use of reiteration.  The melody on "Walking across the sitting room" is repeated on flute to connect to a different passage of music.  Again, the "Eternal Sanctuary Man" stanza is reprised for "As Sure As Eggs is Eggs", evoking the feeling of the culmination of a journey.  But none of the different vocal melodies are used in a verse chorus pattern.


Posted By: thehallway
Date Posted: January 27 2012 at 09:02
Originally posted by progprogprog progprogprog wrote:

Originally posted by thehallway thehallway wrote:

It's chords with vocals..... and neither the chords nor the vocals are innovative  ...


That's just absurd.It weren't innovative if they mimicked previous bands which isn't true.
Maybe you should define this two words:
1.pop
2.innovation 

However you're somehow right about the lyric. 


p.s As you're in PA for a long time, you've certainly said that before so it may be repetitive for you, why don't you just tell the gist of your thoughts to explain how do you really see prog and what do you expect from a prog song?Wacko
 

How do I see prog? Well, 'Prog Rock' is a historic genre of the 1970s that I certainly don't deny Genesis belong to, with all their Mellotron noodling and [eventual] complex song structures.

'Progressive' is not a genre, however, but a word, and we all know what it means. Genesis, before SEbtP, were not, in my opinion, particularly progressive, and to give an example of a significant body of their work that is closer in style to pop and that isn't innovative, I gave you Foxtrot, side one. I haven't heard any earlier albums so I can't comment, but I would be surprised if they were more like Selling England....

Pop just means popular, and it is largely interchangeable with the word rock when we're talking about Genesis in the early seventies. That's what the music they made was. Get 'Em Out By Friday (a song I wasn't planning on listening to so many times over the last couple of days, because I hate it) has a pop structure that merely takes a long time to happen. There is a little intro, plenty of verses and choruses, and some kind of bridge. They didn't mimic any specific previous bands, but that alone is no reason to say 'Genesis were innovative'. A rather conventional arrangement is used on that song and others, a rock rhythm section, with keyboards providing the chords (which are hardly the most adventurous), and a guy singing. The guitar doesn't have a lot to do, but when it does, it's nothing that wouldn't be found outside rock music in general.

Does that make it bad? No (although, for other reasons, I don't really enjoy it). Does it make it progressive though? Also no. Supper's Ready is, however, a song that is progressive in some ways, although I would still argue that it was considerably less innovative and ground-breaking than the music of Yes, ELP and especially King Crimson.

People react badly to criticism of Genesis because there is a lot of love for the band here........ now that I've explained my opinion, I hope it receives less hostility.



-------------
http://www.thefreshfilmblog.com/" rel="nofollow">



Posted By: thehallway
Date Posted: January 27 2012 at 09:08
Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

Side 1 of Foxtrot is by and large pop, in terms of structure.   Which is fine if you pretend Supper's Ready doesn't exist.  But Dancing with the moonlit knight is not pop by any stretch of imagination nor are Musical Box or Fountain of Salmacis.  

Pop in terms of stucture? What tosh. Why is it not rock in terms of structure? This  whole argument is frustrating.


Hardly any difference in terms of structure between pop and rock (i.e. not prog) anyway.  But in either case, not progressive in terms of structure, if I might put it that way instead. 

I'd rather you did...or say "simple song structure"

But I disagree either way.LOL


Yes, simple song structure is exactly what I had in mind.   As for the second line, well, why am I not surprised! LOL

Maybe I should listen again but Get em out by Friday has many different passages and can -utlity is Prog for sure isn't it? Watcher of the Skies without Mellotron would be heavy rock.

But if you disagree, Suppers Ready could be viewed as a number of simple songs strung together(with the exceptuion of a few parts)

As Rogerthat said, it's largely still a cohesive work, and it is progressive, as I'm sure you'll agree. The other songs perhaps seem so, but the only difference between them and the other rock songs of the time would be the increase in length, due to the number of verses and whatnot it took Genesis to get out all of their ideas.

Foxtrot, as a whole, adds barely anything new to the table when it comes to musical innovation, and that is how this argument got started, because I see quite a large gap there between this band and the groups who were pushing boundaries.



-------------
http://www.thefreshfilmblog.com/" rel="nofollow">



Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: January 27 2012 at 09:15
I respectfully disagree

-------------
Coldness doth get away with the badness. http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: progprogprog
Date Posted: January 27 2012 at 09:50
Originally posted by thehallway thehallway wrote:

 

How do I see prog? Well, 'Prog Rock' is a historic genre of the 1970s that I certainly don't deny Genesis belong to, with all their Mellotron noodling and [eventual] complex song structures.

'Progressive' is not a genre, however, but a word, and we all know what it means. Genesis, before SEbtP, were not, in my opinion, particularly progressive, and to give an example of a significant body of their work that is closer in style to pop and that isn't innovative, I gave you Foxtrot, side one. I haven't heard any earlier albums so I can't comment, but I would be surprised if they were more like Selling England....

Pop just means popular, and it is largely interchangeable with the word rock when we're talking about Genesis in the early seventies. That's what the music they made was. Get 'Em Out By Friday (a song I wasn't planning on listening to so many times over the last couple of days, because I hate it) has a pop structure that merely takes a long time to happen. There is a little intro, plenty of verses and choruses, and some kind of bridge. They didn't mimic any specific previous bands, but that alone is no reason to say 'Genesis were innovative'. A rather conventional arrangement is used on that song and others, a rock rhythm section, with keyboards providing the chords (which are hardly the most adventurous), and a guy singing. The guitar doesn't have a lot to do, but when it does, it's nothing that wouldn't be found outside rock music in general.

Does that make it bad? No (although, for other reasons, I don't really enjoy it). Does it make it progressive though? Also no. Supper's Ready is, however, a song that is progressive in some ways, although I would still argue that it was considerably less innovative and ground-breaking than the music of Yes, ELP and especially King Crimson.

People react badly to criticism of Genesis because there is a lot of love for the band here........ now that I've explained my opinion, I hope it receives less hostility.


If you were a musician, you'd know that even Justin Bieber's songs are detailed.No song is simple, it's not like saying "well, let's add some mellotron to this". Music composing, I believe, is not an easy task.Those who compose muse know what I'm exactly talking about.
Foxtrot, as you know, released in 1970 which progressive rock was still an infant, they got more mature with time.Every bands need time to develop their skills and Genesis is no exception.

terms pop, rock, prog, ... aren't enough fulfilling and clear, therefore not good for analyzing a song and its composing details.Actually those are suitable for the reference in conventional conversations not using them to determine a music structure professionally.


Posted By: thehallway
Date Posted: January 27 2012 at 09:56
Originally posted by progprogprog progprogprog wrote:

Originally posted by thehallway thehallway wrote:

 

How do I see prog? Well, 'Prog Rock' is a historic genre of the 1970s that I certainly don't deny Genesis belong to, with all their Mellotron noodling and [eventual] complex song structures.

'Progressive' is not a genre, however, but a word, and we all know what it means. Genesis, before SEbtP, were not, in my opinion, particularly progressive, and to give an example of a significant body of their work that is closer in style to pop and that isn't innovative, I gave you Foxtrot, side one. I haven't heard any earlier albums so I can't comment, but I would be surprised if they were more like Selling England....

Pop just means popular, and it is largely interchangeable with the word rock when we're talking about Genesis in the early seventies. That's what the music they made was. Get 'Em Out By Friday (a song I wasn't planning on listening to so many times over the last couple of days, because I hate it) has a pop structure that merely takes a long time to happen. There is a little intro, plenty of verses and choruses, and some kind of bridge. They didn't mimic any specific previous bands, but that alone is no reason to say 'Genesis were innovative'. A rather conventional arrangement is used on that song and others, a rock rhythm section, with keyboards providing the chords (which are hardly the most adventurous), and a guy singing. The guitar doesn't have a lot to do, but when it does, it's nothing that wouldn't be found outside rock music in general.

Does that make it bad? No (although, for other reasons, I don't really enjoy it). Does it make it progressive though? Also no. Supper's Ready is, however, a song that is progressive in some ways, although I would still argue that it was considerably less innovative and ground-breaking than the music of Yes, ELP and especially King Crimson.

People react badly to criticism of Genesis because there is a lot of love for the band here........ now that I've explained my opinion, I hope it receives less hostility.


If you were a musician, you'd know that even Justin Bieber's songs are detailed.No song is simple, it's not like saying "well, let's add some mellotron to this". Music composing, I believe, is not an easy task.Those who compose muse know what I'm exactly talking about.
Foxtrot, as you know, released in 1970 which progressive rock was still an infant, they got more mature with time.Every bands need time to develop their skills and Genesis is no exception.

terms pop, rock, prog, ... aren't enough fulfilling and clear, therefore not good for analyzing a song and its composing details.Actually those are suitable for the reference in conventional conversations not using them to determine a music structure professionally.

Perhaps, a lesson in not making assumptions is needed today.

I am a musician.

I am studying composition at a world class conservatoire of music.

Music composing, I agree, is not an easy task. I should know.

That has no bearing whatsoever on my opinion of the skill of Genesis, or their level of progressiveness. I judge other rock bands on similar terms.

There is no problem with the words or language...... I'm just using them in a way that must annoy you.

I said myself that Genesis would develop into a decent and progressive band in 1973.

That fact does not make Foxtrot good, in my opinion.



-------------
http://www.thefreshfilmblog.com/" rel="nofollow">



Posted By: progprogprog
Date Posted: January 27 2012 at 10:17
Originally posted by thehallway thehallway wrote:

 

Perhaps, a lesson in not making assumptions is needed today.

I am a musician.

I am studying composition at a world class conservatoire of music.

Music composing, I agree, is not an easy task. I should know.

That has no bearing whatsoever on my opinion of the skill of Genesis, or their level of progressiveness. I judge other rock bands on similar terms.

There is no problem with the words or language...... I'm just using them in a way that must annoy you.

I said myself that Genesis would develop into a decent and progressive band in 1973.

That fact does not make Foxtrot good, in my opinion.

Lesson learned .
I made that assumption because I couldn't imagine a musician in such young age.I apologize for that Handshake
After rereading my post, I couldn't find any anger in my words.we were just talking Beer


Posted By: dwill123
Date Posted: January 27 2012 at 17:08


Posted By: progprogprog
Date Posted: January 27 2012 at 17:56
http://www.arthurmag.com/2010/06/06/it-basically-comes-from-love-john-mclaughlin-in-conversation-with-robert-fripp-1982/" rel="nofollow - http://www.arthurmag.com/2010/06/06/it-basically-comes-from-love-john-mclaughlin-in-conversation-with-robert-fripp-1982/


Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: January 27 2012 at 23:56
Originally posted by thehallway thehallway wrote:


There is no problem with the words or language...... I'm just using them in a way that must annoy you.



Yes, I wanted to bring this up....to say that which is not PROGRESSIVE is just pop with mellotron is far fetched. I knew what you were getting at, but it was an over simplified way of putting it, especially if applied to the entire output of Genesis.  Tracks like Los Endos clearly don't have anything to do with pop even if they may not be highly innovative. I don't think innovation is the USP of Genesis anyway...emotion and theater is.


Posted By: progprogprog
Date Posted: January 28 2012 at 04:34
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

I don't think innovation is the USP of Genesis anyway...emotion and theater is.
Right on Thumbs Up.
And that's true for most prog bands as well.


Posted By: The-time-is-now
Date Posted: January 31 2012 at 06:02
Originally posted by ninestonesclose ninestonesclose wrote:

You can't compare these two like for like... sorry.... both equally brilliant and totally different. Love them both.


Agreed. But I vote Fripp !!!


-------------


One of my best achievements in life was to find this picture :D



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk