I'm falling for it..

You're right, the GG singer sometimes sounds almost like P.Gabriel, but on other tracks the voice sounds thin and weak, maybe another bandmember sometimes sung ?

- Clean, subtle and groovy drums
- Use of odd time signatures
- Dirty guitars
- Thick ambiances

mono wrote: - Clean, subtle and groovy drums - Use of odd time signatures - Dirty guitars - Thick ambiances

Gentle Giant had two lead vocalists: Derek Shulman whose voice is pretty forward and aggressive but occasionally pitchy and annoying, and Kerry Minnear whose voice was much airier, had less variation, but was almost always pleasant. The big brother Shulman sang lead a bit on the first four records at least by credit, though I still can't pick him out.

Butterfly Attack wrote: You're right, the GG singer sometimes sounds almost like P.Gabriel, but on other tracks the voice sounds thin and weak, maybe another bandmember sometimes sung ?

thehallway wrote:   Hmmm.... for what sake then?   I feel that it seems fashionable on this site to criticise the use of key changes, odd time signatures etc when they are done for no reason. Yet everyone here likes them anyway. There is never a reason for any music, 4/4 or otherwise. Who cares if Robert Fripp wrote Larks' Tongues in Aspic in all those funny meters on purpose? Would we prefer it to be accidental? (or "natural" as it is sometimes described)......   Not a criticism of you personally... but lets just forget about motives behind being prorgessive and enjoy the music!

I agree to the extent that we should not necessarily decipher a motive of showmanship or self indulgence when odd time signatures are used or, simply, drastic time signature changes are effected. However, I personally believe there is a reason or supposed to be anyway why one section of music follows the other.  When this 'logical' flow of development is not so evident, I am not satisfied and I cannot just enjoy it for the sake of it because my enjoyment of progressive music extends partly from the skill and command exhibited by the composer.  And being able to make the parts fit as if they were always meant to be is a testament to great compositional skill, the kind that really gets me excited. Without evidence of such skill, the only thing I glean from a band playing an odd time signature is that, well, maybe it's tough to play and they are able to do it but so what.  Genesis sail through time signature changes as well as odd time sigs so smoothly you'd have to pay attention to notice it.  There are some bands who do it so abruptly it's in your face and disruptive. I know what I'd rather have, so to that extent whether 'meaning' can be assigned to the use of a particular compositional device is important in music appreciation.  If, even after careful analysis and assessment, there seems to be no rhyme or reason why some piece of music had to be part of the composition, it reflects a bit badly on the composer. 

rogerthat wrote: thehallway wrote:   Hmmm.... for what sake then?   I feel that it seems fashionable on this site to criticise the use of key changes, odd time signatures etc when they are done for no reason. Yet everyone here likes them anyway. There is never a reason for any music, 4/4 or otherwise. Who cares if Robert Fripp wrote Larks' Tongues in Aspic in all those funny meters on purpose? Would we prefer it to be accidental? (or "natural" as it is sometimes described)......   Not a criticism of you personally... but lets just forget about motives behind being prorgessive and enjoy the music! I agree to the extent that we should not necessarily decipher a motive of showmanship or self indulgence when odd time signatures are used or, simply, drastic time signature changes are effected. However, I personally believe there is a reason or supposed to be anyway why one section of music follows the other.  When this 'logical' flow of development is not so evident, I am not satisfied and I cannot just enjoy it for the sake of it because my enjoyment of progressive music extends partly from the skill and command exhibited by the composer.  And being able to make the parts fit as if they were always meant to be is a testament to great compositional skill, the kind that really gets me excited. Without evidence of such skill, the only thing I glean from a band playing an odd time signature is that, well, maybe it's tough to play and they are able to do it but so what.  Genesis sail through time signature changes as well as odd time sigs so smoothly you'd have to pay attention to notice it.  There are some bands who do it so abruptly it's in your face and disruptive. I know what I'd rather have, so to that extent whether 'meaning' can be assigned to the use of a particular compositional device is important in music appreciation.  If, even after careful analysis and assessment, there seems to be no rhyme or reason why some piece of music had to be part of the composition, it reflects a bit badly on the composer.

 

thehallway wrote: [   I see what you mean. The art of integrating these rhythms into good music without ruining the melody or whatever, is a element of our enjoyment. But that is subjective.   I guess what bothers me is when people decide that band X are consistently capable, and as such, "allowed" to use these time signatures, while band Y, for whatever reason, are doing it for the wrong reasons and should stop. I think in those cases it is the listener, not the band, with the problem.

Yes, it is subjective but the most important things in music are, unfortunately, rather subjective and cannot be 'zero-factored' out of debate which tends to happen a lot these days in discussions.  As for the second part, my response to that is they should not but yes, they do. You are basically saying that sometimes just because it's a piece by KC or some such big prog name, their music is treated as beyond reproach.  I personally do think albums like Lizard and Islands lack initiative and parts of SABB lack direction.  Just because it's KC doesn't mean I am precluded from saying so.  AND, Red is my favourite music album of all time.

rogerthat wrote: thehallway wrote: [   I see what you mean. The art of integrating these rhythms into good music without ruining the melody or whatever, is a element of our enjoyment. But that is subjective.   I guess what bothers me is when people decide that band X are consistently capable, and as such, "allowed" to use these time signatures, while band Y, for whatever reason, are doing it for the wrong reasons and should stop. I think in those cases it is the listener, not the band, with the problem. Yes, it is subjective but the most important things in music are, unfortunately, rather subjective and cannot be 'zero-factored' out of debate which tends to happen a lot these days in discussions.  As for the second part, my response to that is they should not but yes, they do. You are basically saying that sometimes just because it's a piece by KC or some such big prog name, their music is treated as beyond reproach.  I personally do think albums like Lizard and Islands lack initiative and parts of SABB lack direction.  Just because it's KC doesn't mean I am precluded from saying so.  AND, Red is my favourite music album of all time.

 

rogerthat wrote: thehallway wrote: See, there might be someone who's a massive Pink Floyd fan but not a Genesis fan..... and they might say that PF's use of key changes is really natural and essential to the song, while Genesis "just do it to show off". It could be the other way around. It could be that big bands are allowed but new proggers aren't......... The point is, you cannot enter the mind of a musician, so you should never look at their music based on their intentions. It isn't ethics, it's art. Ethics is a rather loaded word.  Anyway, I agree that this sort of thing happens and I have said before that it shouldn't. However, to repeat, I do look at whether a particular compositional choice sounds natural to me.  I don't generally make hasty judgments on this, but I know at what point (of repeated listening) the music and not moi is the problem if it still doesn't make sense.  Maybe I wouldn't allege showing off or exhibitionism but I would infer inadequate compositional skill and the latter is not exactly flattering either.  Also, in certain contexts, showboating can be reasonably inferred. Inserting an excessively fast burst of shred where the musical moment simply doesn't call for it can be called  showboating. Of course, it could be argued that the musician is simply enjoying himself. Well then, enjoying oneself at the expense of the requirements of the song IS showboating.