Generation gaps in progressive music - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

TODDLER

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126

Posted: November 10 2014 at 13:13

I feel abandoned by this and several exceptional musicians that I know feel the same. It's based on the independent artist forever remaining independent. Maybe a choice long ago would have been to record and release an instrumental album that was backed by a good label. That raised the percentage of possibilities to reach many people with your music. This was actually still happening around the time of the Penguin Cafe Orchestra. A much larger percentage of youths just entering college bought their music because it was artistic and left quite an impression on them. This is not allowed in today's music standards because they have to create rules derived from methods on contriving the pieces of music. Some people in the past have made statements about how they think the 70's Progressive movement was a hyped up joke. At least we had that freedom with the financial power behind it. To reach as many people as possible with your music. Even in the way that Tangerine Dream went cross country in the U.S. and gained a decent following. This whole idea of dismissing innovators in Classical music, Jazz, Progressive Rock...developed during the "Punk Rock" era, however I don't think fault can be attributed to the punks...I just believe the industry were in the midst of turning their backs on Prog during this time. What better experience to have none other than the one where you witness a dying art. I remember when Anthony Phillips released "The Geese And The Ghost" and right at that moment the industry was about to hammer on Progressive Rock. Hammer as to SLAM it into tiny little pieces.

By 1978 Roger Glover released Elements with a full score for orchestra traveling into a style of Jazz mostly heard in the music of Passport. This album was composed in the vain of theatre writing techniques and expanded through a great idea to instrumentally and vocally give a presentation of the elements. It was on the Polydor label and that gave me hope that maybe Prog had not yet been wiped off the map. 1980 changed everything and it felt like an "over the night" deal. I had been on the road for only 3 years and suddenly every band was asked to change the way they looked, their lyrics, the structure of their music was to be simplified in terms of boring and nothing was ever the same after that. I left this scene and went to play in theatres for years and that's when I came face to face with Progressive Rock bands signed to major record labels and watched them vanish from the music scene. This was very sad to witness. You knew they were never going to be promoted like they were in the early 70's. At first many Prog bands like Nektar and Happy The Man were being distributed through domestic labels and the band's were basically playing theatres and clubs. When more than half of these bands were dropped by these labels..it created panic in the hearts of powerful musicians who were traveling up and down the East coast of the U.S. It was devastating to everyone who appreciated music.

brainstormer View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 20 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 887

Posted: November 10 2014 at 13:32

It's interesting to note that you can't ever turn the hands of time backwards.

What most on this board and elsewhere consider the greatest prog works were composed 35-45 years

ago. That's quite a long time ago from some people's perspectives.

I think some better see that level of prog rock as a lucky break to get you into classical. The escape

from Rock is long and arduous. You have to pretty much go it alone if your friends don't

have a clue what you are up to (besides a mere posturing that they do).

I have found the level of die hard proggies to be more closer to a high schooler's

mentality, and closer to say, a heavy metal enthusiast, then a broader acceptance

of all music based on the virtue of the music alone. It's closer to classical than

say "New Wave/Punk/Post-Punk," Industrial or other forms. "New Wave/Punk/Post-Punk,"

music is more like basic songwriting, whereas at least metal is closer to jazz in that it can

be more a "musicians' music" (but so is finely crafted pop songwriting).

--
Robert Pearson
Regenerative Music http://www.regenerativemusic.net
Telical Books http://www.telicalbooks.com
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net

moshkito

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 18904

Posted: November 11 2014 at 09:48

TODDLER wrote:

... This I believe is a pre-planned method of influencing the minds and mentalities of the youth. The industry first cracked down on any epic or instrumental and perceived it to be a threat to their new ideas. ...

It's the same the world over ... listen to Guru Guru's satire song (last one on Tango Fango), and it gives you another idea. All cultures try to influence their youngsters to their way of thinking, and so does America and England! And sometimes, I think the media modulation is even worse than the gun in the old days we had to put up with in fascist days of Portugal! The media these days, has become about supporting the local economy and top ten, so they can manipulate the majority of the moneys. It's not always that exact, but it's close enough of an analogy.

It's just like AT&T now saying they will sue the government if the government insists on no limits to the speed and what not, when AT$T owns most of the pipes, and American business institutions are not used to "regulation". Usually they do whatever they want! It's a very slanted point of view and discussion ... that will get all of us just screaming ... and that AT&T needs to get split up again, like Ma'Bell had to ... only to have their old owners say ... it's a matter of time, and we'll have everything again! And they do!

You also want to check out the nasty battles that Akira Kurosawa had with the Japanese studios that even refused to release his films, because they were not bringing in the millions of yen that they wanted. He, instead, ended up relying on European and American folks to get his films done ... and in the end, he will be remembered, and the other jerks never heard of again!

All depends on your internal constitution and how much you want to dedicate your own life to. The bigger and better artists will ALWAYS survive these political crap.

ALL of the late 60's stuff, was, almost singlehandedly, very politically and socially minded, specially in America. But saying that the stuff in London wasn't, with the IRA bombs going off at the time, is also not something that today's fans are aware of, as much as we were!!!!!

You can watch the film "Woodstock", and you can see the socio-political thread in it. But, already by that time, there was a nice intent to "come together", which STILL is not appreciated by many that speak out against marijuana and hippies and such, as if any culture did not have their own similar group. It feels just like 300 years ago, when the folks blazing west went on a genocide rampage in America. The media is doing the same thing!

KC's first album is the ultimate statement telling you all this I am saying!

We just need to fight the folks that want to keep you blind! And the majority of all the arts, in any specific designation, have always been the greatest fighters of these wrongs, even going as far back as Oedipus and Lysistrata ... even if we think those were fantasies and just stories, which they weren't. Or as Luis Bunuel would say ... 'Le Phantome de la Liberte" ... is alive and well ... and Goya gave us a snapshot! It's been the same all along!

Edited by moshkito - November 11 2014 at 10:16

Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com

TODDLER

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126

Posted: November 12 2014 at 12:39

In the 70's you had to work twice as hard to research Progressive Rock. When comparing the 70's to technology of today, you might think there was no technology at all. It was that extreme. First you had to find a directory that would list record shops carrying obscure titles. Then you had to physically be there to purchase an album because not every store offered mail order procedures. If a new release from David Bedford entered the store, you'd be lucky to find a copy. Usually people in the city were following the underground scene in Europe and researched that kind of music . Albums by Hatfield and The North and National Health were difficult to obtain in the 70's. Daevid Allen walked into "Third Street Jazz And Rock" record shop in Philadelphia with stacks of Gong albums asking the store owner to sell his music. The albums filtered out quickly in Philadelphia, but it was an isolated situation whenever you would consider the vast quantity of people in South Jersey and surrounding areas where most of them had no idea who Gong were. Underground Prog bands of the 70's had so much to offer and it's a shame they weren't promoted extensively. Many people missed out on the meaning behind their music because of this situation.

Edited by TODDLER - November 12 2014 at 12:40

moshkito

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 18904

Posted: November 14 2014 at 14:52

TODDLER wrote:

In the 70's you had to work twice as hard to research Progressive Rock. When comparing the 70's to technology of today, you might think there was no technology at all. It was that extreme. ...

Surprisingly enough ... in Southern California things were not that bad. Madison was not bad either, with so many foreign students, but while I heard a lot of different and non-radio music up there, I did not get to hear any of the real foreigh bands until I was in California.

California, may not be the greatest, but that open-ness exists in there and is capable of getting some attention. However, it is a grind, either way you look at it, since the place is all about the STARS in film and everywhere else ... but you get such a variety of names and stars as to get dizzy! I mean ... you're gonna miss Richard Harris doing Camelot? You're gonna miss "An Evening with PC and DM" You're gonna miss Dianna Rigg and Keith Mitchell in a play? NO YOU ARE NOT!

Music was no different, and a lot of the foreign bands made the round, but not all of them were as open and fun as the others were. Focus and PFM did fine. Tangerine Dream just fine. But Shulze didn't because he was too isolated from it all to do his meditations no one else understood!

Compare this to up here in POrtland/Vancouver and this is a big small town that has no music taste. Their jazz thing at Mt Hood, is almost all "traditional", because there is no understanding of what the arts (any of them) really is past the picture of a tomato in your dining room!

If we call that a gap, it distorts the whole thing. But if we look at each year and the numbers of works that came out ... there never was a GAP ... we just prefer bands and our favorite did not show up for 5 years ... or whatever!

Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com

TODDLER

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126

Posted: November 17 2014 at 10:59

moshkito wrote:

[QUOTE=TODDLER]In the 70's you had to work twice as hard to research Progressive Rock. When comparing the 70's to technology of today, you might think there was no technology at all. It was that extreme. ...

Archie Patterson has told me the same.

moshkito

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 18904

Posted: November 18 2014 at 09:45

TODDLER wrote:

Archie Patterson has told me the same.

Archie WAS one of the providers for a lot of the music at that time! He should know, and DOES, but sadly, he is not writing about it, and helping a place like this get some credibility, beyond a silly and unfocused database! The same for folks like Guy Guden, and others in the LA area ... in many ways, they were the most important folks of all ... to help spread the "gospel" that far!

I've talked to Archie and had several emails to him, and have mentioned him on the other thread here on PA, but for some reason, these folks are remaining quiet ... and sometimes it feels like they were just the janitors and had no voice, and that's not true ... they did a lot more than we realize, and are willing to write about, and understand.

Edited by moshkito - November 18 2014 at 10:06

Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com

TODDLER

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126

Posted: November 18 2014 at 11:21

moshkito wrote:

TODDLER wrote:

Archie Patterson has told me the same.

Yes I agree! Archie wrote great articles on "Progressive Rock" for years. Additionally he interviewed Progressive Rock bands and Electronic artists around the world and his own mail order business to sell Electronic and Prog. He is very informative in these subjects and his brain is like a encyclopedia. He's one of the original pioneers to promote Electronic music and Progressive Rock. There were other candidates like Marty from England who used to sell import albums out of the back of his stationwagon, slowly moved up a scale and settled as Jem Records/Imports in South Plainfield N.J. in the industrial park on Kennedy Blvd. Archie...at that time was somehow associated with "Green World"...so as you can see, Archie was part of this scene during the development of American distributors trying to promote/sell European underground Progressive Rock. All Gong albums were available from Jem Imports. Even rarities like Greasy Truckers Party. Andy Garibaldi , (spelling wrong, been too long), wrote reviews on Electronic music for years ..I believe in England. People were sincerely trying to push this music at a time when the music industry were about to turn their backs on it.

The industry never totally turned their backs on the 60's music, but instead figured out a method to place it into a cardboard box and paste a plastic stamp on it for future generations to digest. The evidence around us tells everyone that a list was chosen

Here's the list

Eric Clapton

Jimi Hendrix

Janis Joplin

Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young

The Beatles

The Rolling Stones

The Doors

.........and there are quite a few I haven't mentioned , but we don't need to ..let's get to the point

Here is the list of unfortunates who will never receive the credit that the ones on the chosen list do.

Canned Heat......basically internationally known as a party band that has zero stage presence. Fito..the drummer plays a Latin Jazz style in many of the uptempo Blues style songs. Blind Owl Wilson was an outstanding harp player who experimented with music that derived from other cultures. Canned Heat were popular in the 60's and The Doors used to open for them.

Mike Bloomfield...an outstanding Blues guitarist and innovator that formed The Electric Flag. Unknown today...and well known in the late 60's. During this time I was 12 years old and growing up around hippies who were music fanatics. All my sister's friends, hippies in high school, the avenue, the concerts...all seemed to know that Mike Bloomfield was a great guitarist and that he was just as good or better than E.C. is God. Many of them felt the same way about Peter Green. Many of them listened to Jefferson Airplane albums in their entirety and understood the lyrics and concepts. That also includes the later albums like Bark and Long John Silver which crossed more into Progressive Rock. When the industry made this list of the chosen, Jefferson Airplane became a circus for younger generations to conceive. All we heard in the 80's was "Somebody To Love" and "White Rabbit" ..so how could such a creative band ever be taken seriously again? However generations of youths took Jimi Hendrix VERY seriously because it was being drilled into every kid's head from every generation,..that he was different, an innovator, and from outer space. So why the F--k did the industry block Jefferson Airplane's original creative intent of 60's music OFF from people and instead pronounce Jimi Hendrix and Eric Clapton as GODS?

Canned Heat, Paul Butterfield Blues Band, Electric Flag, Quicksilver Messenger Service, Jefferson Airplane, Fleetwood Mac, John Mayall, Free, Mike Bloomfield...were just as popular to the music crowds of the 60's

as the industry's chosen list of candidates were. I call them "the usual suspects"...although I hold them in the highest regard for they are innovators too...but...why block out a entire chapter of the 60's that was just as creative to satisfy your need for money and as a result influence the average person to simply NOT think about these OTHER bands? In the 60's..the average person was aware of the bands on the "Black list". Blue Cheer was a very popular band on the East coast of the U.S. during the 60's. What I mean specifically by "average person" is not meant to be insulting, but related more in terms of an individual who does not concern themselves with music 24/7. It was to that extreme during the 60's. Almost everyone between the ages of 12 and 19..knew about these bands who were viciously wipes off the industry's map of appreciation. As a result these "wipe offs" had to form communities of their own to re-invest in their act which the industry neglected. Canned Heat's music is used for the anthem to Woodstock, but they won't easily allow the common person to understand the diversity in that particular band...yet they want an abundance of society to feel that way about Jimi Hendrix. That's disgraceful!

Edited by TODDLER - November 18 2014 at 11:56

TODDLER

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126

Posted: November 18 2014 at 11:39

Johnny Winter was one of the greatest guitarists of the 60's. Jimi Hendrix used to jam with him. Mike Bloomfield brought Johnny Winter on stage at the Fillmore East for the first time and people couldn't understand how any guitar player could be that good and just hypnotize everyone in the audience after the first 5 or 6 notes played. Everybody knew WHO he was and it was open arms for Johnny Winter from the hippie culture. He was breathtaking and yet..most people or the average person today...does not know of him and does not connect him to the 60's in any sense of the word. In the 80's..I was on the same circuit bookings as Johnny Winter and it was evident to me that his name had been wiped out by the industry. Younger generations I performed for over many years could not attribute his innovative playing to the 60's because they had no flippin' idea WHO he was! That's ridiculous! In the 60's, every hippie on every street corner knew Johnny Winter's music. Johnny Winter and Canned Heat were NOT by any means some sort of act that had obtained even-tempered fame in the 60's. That's deadly wrong if anyone were to assume so based on record sales. Nevertheless...the industry wiped them out and gave them the same lame promotional representation, the same old song and dance of .."Well, if you want to investigate the complexity of Jefferson Airplane, do it on your own...it's a free country, we don't have time for it...we are much too busy working promotion around the next Jimi Hendrix release of rare recordings pulled from our evil little vaults.

TODDLER

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126

Posted: November 18 2014 at 12:37

I've always been deeply annoyed by the phrase..."Give The People What They Want". Even Jack Black from School Of Rock would clear that up for you and I do get a kick out of his observations on the band RUSH..but anyway ..."Give the people what they want". Think about it. Think really hard. What does that precisely mean? Ray Davies wrote "You Really Got Me" on the piano one day. He asked his brother Dave Davies if he could do something with the riff. Dave Davies sliced the speaker in his little green amp to give that riff a special sound and that sound, went on to define Rock music. Were they intentionally trying to give the people what they wanted? No, they were not. Were The Kinks different from The Beatles and The Rolling Stones? Yes..they were. All of those bands sounded completely different from each other. There were times when The Rolling Stones and The Kinks crossed into Beatle territory musically, but not a percentage to be often remembered.

"Give The People What They Want" meant , (in my case), to tow the line and follow instructions. That's what I was getting payed to do...however the record executives who were mostly ex-revolutionaries from the 60's were controlling all levels of the music industry by the time I hit the music scene. That was disgraceful because ex-revolutionaries grew up on the creative 60's music and lived and breathed the substance of all it's expression to the arts...and suddenly...they are obsessed with the turning of all artists into Michael Jackson. So........by producing clones of another...they can reproduce an empire to feed off of for centuries and easily pass the business down to family and friends to continue this moronic method of doing business. Allow me to understand this for a moment, is this how they give the people what they want? How in God's name do the people know what they want? How is that possible, when the real artists are not allowed to express true art unless they are in a boat with Paul McCartney composing symphonies?

In a lot of mainstream music today..everything seems to derive from a formula that was carefully observed and pre-planned. The hooks in Modern Country are reminiscent of Southern Rock in the 70's. Modern Country contains distorted guitar sounding like it would hail from the "Stadium Rock" era. Each element of sound has been compartmentalized into samples. The samples influences the musician to think differently about adding other styles of music to their own then how a musician would have conceived it in the 70's. The difference is we are dealing more with technology now and as a result we become less creative with the push of a button opposed to creating the sound ourselves. In modern mainstream music..there seems to be a constant repeat of 1 minor chord and 3 majors. These are the most boring chord progressions in the history of mankind, but we "Give The People What They Want".

TODDLER

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126

Posted: November 18 2014 at 13:16

Ronnie Kayfield was this really creative guitarist I knew from the road in the 70's and 80's ...but I have more memory of him during the "Glam Rock' era just prior to The New York Dolls breaking up and Ronny joining The Heartbreakers which included members of NYD ...That was a weird scene and I was about 18 traveling with Glam Rock bands..although I was classically trained...I sold out...and it was corporate where you would be escorted to a dressing room where upon a fine lady...(out of Playboy magazine), would proceed to cover your face with pancake goo, eye shadow, and basically the works to present you as a female to the degree of exhaustion. The musicians playing an original style of "Glam Rock" or then...better known as "Glitter Rock" were decent players. A strange scene and almost like the entry of the mid to late 70's Punk Rock scene. Glam definitely had a Punk attitude as you can hear that T.Rex's The Slider.

Ronnie Kayfield was demonstrating guitars and was a fine guitar mechanic. Somehow Ozzy Osborne heard of him, wanted to purchase a guitar for Brad Gillis..who was about to replace Randy Rhodes after his tragic death. Ronnie demonstrated a guitar for Ozzy by playing all of Randy Rhodes parts. Ozzy told him to forget about Brad Gillis and that he would purchase tickets for Ronnie and his wife to fly to England and form the new Ozzy band that would feature Ronnie on guitar. When they arrived...they were approached by Pete Way , bassist with UFO in the 70's ...and he told them that Ozzy was ill and wouldn't be forming a band. Pete Way suggested that Ronnie Kayfield should form a band with him. This band was called Waysted and they ended up on a U.S. tour with Ozzy Osborne. Ozzy approached Ronnie and asked what the bloody hell happened? Things like "I paid for your airline ticket" or "you were suppose to be the guitar player in this band, I wanted you". So then Ronnie tells Ozzy the Pete Way story and how it must have been a lie and I suppose Ozzy had a few choice words with Pete Way after that. Think about it. If Ronnie Kayfield had recorded and toured with Ozzy, would that have been an act of giving the people what they want? ...or did it even matter?

All the paths I've crossed , all the years of traveling in the music business...a bit like traveling in the circus in an avant-garde way, but how do you measure anything to be what the people want in any sense of the word? Music doesn't work like that. Business does. Music in the past has become popular for it's sound which was not contrived and that is the way it is suppose to work. Pure honest devotion and not placing yourself on a hot oven to further burn a hole in your butt or your mind ..over the moronic pointless vision of what the people want. Topographic Oceans was NOT what the people wanted. It was released and then you either liked it or you did not. Billy Joel was a commercial singer songwriter who loved the piano playing of Keith Emerson. He wrote crafty commercial Pop songs and gained a massive following. He wasn't giving the people what they wanted in any sense of a word called dishonesty. He was a natural and the average person related to his songs. The industry was trying to figure out how to inspire other artists to take on Billy Joel's role and it's completely pointless. Crafty singer songwriters may change with the times, but they usually don't..(as a rule), leave any source of creativity out of their songs for the sake of pressure on them to be otherwise.

Edited by TODDLER - November 18 2014 at 13:19

Toaster Mantis View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898

Posted: November 18 2014 at 14:02

I start to wonder how much of a gulf there is between how specific eras in rock music and cultural history generally actually were perceived then when they happened, and how they've been remembered by the "popular culture" at large afterwards. The last handful of posts have been rather insightful in that regard, it's always interesting reading and comparing accounts from people who actually were there "back then" during an oft-romanticized (or at least mythologized) time in music history.

"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook

TODDLER

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126

Posted: November 19 2014 at 10:12

Danny Kirwan wrote some interesting Rock songs during his time in Fleetwood Mac possibly between 1970 and 1972. I usually do not include his writing on "Then Play On" to be linked to the same style he developed for Kiln House, Future Games and Bare Trees. "Child Of Mine" I gathered was about his abusive father. It had a Country Rock sound that was subtle and creative enough to produce a haunting sound as well. The guitar solos are backed with strange chord voicings that are atmospheric and grey. "Bare Trees", "Dust", "Sands Of Time", are very melodic and have a haunting sound that is obvious in the Rock song. Buckingham and Nicks put together ideas that were very close to Danny Kirwan's ideas and his actual sound. "Go Your Own Way" is a like a Kirwan song in many details....for example: the beat, the chord changes, and the vocal melody line during the verses are too reminiscent of Danny Kirwan's writing to the point of pulling the wool over someone's eyes. Why would anyone think of Danny Kirwan's previous work with Fleetwood Mac in the year of 1976 when Buckingham and Nicks hit the big time? Think about it. Why would anyone care? Why would Danny Kirwan get the credit? Mick Fleetwood said himself that when he first heard the Buckingham/Nicks solo album..it reminded him of Danny Kirwan...except this time Danny Kirwan's formula's for songwriting were being used by others to create the same sound.

Danny Kirwan's songwriting had always been praised by Rock journalists of the early 70's. I believe Mick Fleetwood felt that Danny Kirwan's writing had always been an important element to the band and when he heard that sound in Buckingham's writing....well the rest is history. To further damage his soul, many of the songs from Rumors and Fleetwood Mac (self titled) , are part of his own songwriting development which he had displayed on Bare Trees, Future Games, and Kiln House. I suppose it was like a gift from him or something noble like that and not that they took it upon themselves to foreplay his style in a devious manner. Learn all the songs I've mentioned on guitar and compare them yourself. It was definitely Danny Kirwan's formula that they were successful with in obtaining commercially internationally money-making fame.

I believe his life may have been on the more positive side to progression if he had joined Wishbone Ash. I listen to Wishbone Ash songs like "Time Was", "The King Will Come", "Leaf and Stream", "Lady Whiskey" and can literally hear Danny Kirwan singing them. He also wrote in that style. If you listen to "Sands Of Time" or "Bare Trees" they are very closely related in harmony, chord structure, and overall style to the composition of a Wishbone Ash song written in 1972. Try to imagine Martin Turner as the vocalist instead of Kirwan and it becomes evident that the styles cross over. This would have been possibly a better future for Danny Kirwan than a toss off the old Fleetwood Mac tour , where he had an episode and his life went down hill and you might think that someone in the industry during the 70's would have stopped him from destroying himself and turn his life around a bit to give him what he DID need. He's in the "Rock n' Roll Hall Of Fame, but it doesn't matter you see my logic behind this? They should have done something for him then and not now. It really lacks glory. If he really wasn't that important to a mass of Rock followers ..then why was his writing so important to Fleetwood Mac? He went right down the slope and they used what he had taught them. He was a great writer and he produced Christine McVie's solo album. He was innovative to musicians around him. The industry should have backed him to be a songwriter ..just like every other songwriter who was crafty and even artistic and not some guy shifted down this slope and perceived as a threat in the mid 70's due to his bizarre actions displayed at ONE..Fleetwood Mac gig.

Edited by TODDLER - November 19 2014 at 10:24

HolyMoly

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin

Joined: April 01 2009
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 26138

Posted: November 19 2014 at 11:00

Not knowing how to play any of those Mac songs on guitar, I never really noticed too close a similarity between Kirwan's and Buckingham's writing style. They both have a "mainstream soft rock but with an edge and a guitar emphasis" kind of approach, but then so did the Eagles (minus the edge). And I do agree that Fleetwood and co probably liked Buckingham in part because he was not inconsistent with the band's identity as established to this point (though by this time, Bob Welch's style was much more what Mac was about). But I'd stop short of scolding Fleetwood Mac for borrowing his style and failing to acknowledge him. I've only read a handful of accounts (none from Kirwan himself), but from what I gather his erratic and volatile behavior really put the band on pins and needles, apparently. It was just very difficult to continue to work with him, I think they were kind of afraid of him in fact, that he might fly off the handle and hurt somebody at any moment. That's why I think he was fired.

His lack of success following Mac is indeed a sad state of affairs. I'm a big fan of him myself. And I guess your main point is that his under-appreciation on the part of the band and the music industry at large, not to mention Fleetwood Mac fans, is a sorry case of neglect for a worthy man. Why did he flip out? My personal view is that he joined the band as Peter Green's sidekick, and that was a position he was comfortable and happy with. Then Greenie leaves and suddenly he's fronting the band, and I think he didn't feel ready for that. His talent pulled him through for a couple of albums, but the stress built up, he drank a lot, and basically never had much of a rapport with the others in the band anyway (besides Green). Maybe he just wasn't cut out for the pressures of mainstream success.

My other avatar is a Porsche

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.

-Kehlog Albran

TODDLER

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126

Posted: November 19 2014 at 12:00

HolyMoly wrote:

Not knowing how to play any of those Mac songs on guitar, I never really noticed too close a similarity between Kirwan's and Buckingham's writing style. They both have a "mainstream soft rock but with an edge and a guitar emphasis" kind of approach, but then so did the Eagles (minus the edge). And I do agree that Fleetwood and co probably liked Buckingham in part because he was not inconsistent with the band's identity as established to this point (though by this time, Bob Welch's style was much more what Mac was about). But I'd stop short of scolding Fleetwood Mac for borrowing his style and failing to acknowledge him. I've only read a handful of accounts (none from Kirwan himself), but from what I gather his erratic and volatile behavior really put the band on pins and needles, apparently. It was just very difficult to continue to work with him, I think they were kind of afraid of him in fact, that he might fly off the handle and hurt somebody at any moment. That's why I think he was fired.

Danny Kirwan was socially the misfit in the band. Christine McVie once said that bumming a cigarette from him was such a hassle, but I gather he carried pain from child abuse and held it all in as it built up like a time bomb ready to explode. Alcohol and drugs were an escape for Danny Kirwan, Peter Green , and Jeremy Spencer. Considering the times they were living in where everyone wanted to party, perhaps an individual like Kirwan was often ignored or perhaps he hid who he was. Evidently all 3 of them had psychological problems to the point where they became interested in joining cults as a means of substituting their own personal torment. Not so much Kirwan..however he did hang with Green in a commune a few times. I remember when Jeremy Spencer disappeared and they searched until he was discovered living with The Children Of God. Christine McVie had made it a point to say..that if Jeremy had stayed in England this would have never happened. She went on to discuss cults in America and further defended her point by stating that these levels or measures of cults in England didn't exist and that this could have only occurred in America. The band seemed to take more of a liking to the personality of Spencer than Kirwan. Spencer was perverted and had strange ideas about hanging a dildo on Fleetwood's kick drum. He would often be the life of the party and later retreat to his room to read the Bible. He had a duel personality and they still liked him more socially than Kirwan...(it seems). Danny Kirwan was the quiet type.

His lack of success following Mac is indeed a sad state of affairs. I'm a big fan of him myself. And I guess your main point is that his under-appreciation on the part of the band and the music industry at large, not to mention Fleetwood Mac fans, is a sorry case of neglect for a worthy man. Why did he flip out? My personal view is that he joined the band as Peter Green's sidekick, and that was a position he was comfortable and happy with. Then Greenie leaves and suddenly he's fronting the band, and I think he didn't feel ready for that. His talent pulled him through for a couple of albums, but the stress built up, he drank a lot, and basically never had much of a rapport with the others in the band anyway (besides Green). Maybe he just wasn't cut out for the pressures of mainstream success.

I agree totally that he could have been this way, but in all honesty..hundreds of performers were not cut out for the pressures of mainstream success and they did it anyway. Many of them went to therapy and sorted out their trials after their success and it has been a lesson to their lives. Kirwan wasn't of great interest to the industry in the same fashion if Pete Ham, Tom Evans, and Joey Molland from Badfinger had went solo that too would have been dismissed by the industry as something of a lesser known project and not worthy to invest in unlike the profit they utterly stole from Badfinger with their sales of hit singles.

bhikkhu

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A² Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109

Posted: November 19 2014 at 20:56

moshkito wrote:

A real surprise what what we got exposed to in Western Michigan. For some reason the Grand Rapids area was a bit of an art rock (that's what they called it then) oasis. Sure we may not have been exposed to all the things a larger metropolitan area would offer but still impressive for the location. I remember one station doing an evening of Jack Bruce's solo work and of course there was plenty of Genesis. First time I saw them was in Kalamazoo. In fact when Marillion was the opening act for Rush's 1985 tour, I saw them all by themselves in Grand Rapids.

a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com

TODDLER

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126

Posted: November 20 2014 at 04:46

bhikkhu wrote:

moshkito wrote:

Really interesting story! Great!

Atavachron View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 65892

Posted: November 20 2014 at 04:49

I can't believe Genesis played Kalamazoo.

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy

tamijo

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287

Posted: November 20 2014 at 05:26

I know quite a few people, 50+ ,who dislike the sound of early 70's prog, you dont have to be young to dislike the relative "primitive" sound, most bands had in the early 70's

Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours

Atavachron View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 65892

Posted: November 20 2014 at 05:37

^ Many early 70s bands have a primitive sound by today's standards (though many had it even then by intent; primitive was in, man), but not most of the bigger prog bands-- I would not call CttE or Selling England or Aqualung or Dark Side primitive on any level, even production.

Edited by Atavachron - November 20 2014 at 05:40

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy