nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (07/09/85)
> From: bruns@wanginst.UUCP (Glenn Bruns) > A year ago I tried listening to "Tales from Topographic > Oceans" followed by the Genesis album "The Lamb Lies ..." and it seemed > that Yes's sound (at least on Tales) was obsolete but that Genesis still > sounded fresh. Maybe that's because Peter Gabriel sounded close to the > edge (clever gag) like a lot of 80's music, while Yes was mushy. Precisely so! (But every now and then I'm in the mood for a little mushiness -- you just gotta take it in very limtted doses. How come every time I listen to Yes, I feel like I'm suffering from a glucose overdose?) > I have to respond to Doug Alan's statement that Bach wrote music for > musicians. Sorry, but I don't think that can be backed up. As I > understand it, Bach primarily wrote for the church, and churchgoers > were his audience. I didn't say that Bach wrote music for musicians. His music has a lot of merit even for the layperson, but almost everybody that I know that is ECSTATIC about Bach is a musician. To me, Bach music just sounds sort of pleasant. I enjoy listening to it, it just doesn't drive me into fits of uncontrollable passion, the way a lot of other music does, and the way Bach's music does to some musicians. > I don't like the kind of argument that implies that those who enjoy > commercial music are harming themselves.... Sometimes music just makes > me tap my feet; I don't feel particularly compelled to perform some > humane or inspired act afterwards. Good music can make you tap your feet. But it should do it because your feet have just been introduced to something new, neat, and original, not just because some record company executive has figured out the formula on how to push your buttons. Why waste any time being a machine in our pathetically short lives, when you can be incorporating something new and interesting into your mind. If you want to tap your feet listen to The B52s, The Tom Tom Club, or The Talking Heads! Not Madonna. > I mean, posting flames to the group that include obscenities is pretty > bad. "Gnats fuck my nostrils" says Captain Beefheart, and I agree with him! Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA) P.S. My goodness, they're palying "Hocus Pocus" by Focus on the radio! I haven't heard that since ... 1972?
acs@amdahl.UUCP (Tony Sumrall) (07/12/85)
Glenn Bruns and Doug Alan apparently agree that the YES music from
"Tales..." seems dated when compared with old Genesis "Lamb"...sadly,
I must agree (I say sadly because I WAS a faithful YES fan several years
ago--around the time of "Tormato", I believe. It was at that time that
YES's music began to sound tired and not too new TO ME).
I recently purchased my FIRST Peter Gabriel album and was FLAT-OUT
AMAZED at how well his music/style survived the years--I can tell it's
Gabriel/old Genesis. Pete's music STILL has the power that was present
waaaaay back when while sounding "fresh".
I don't want to be accused of over-analyzing (what I consider to be)
something that shouldn't be over-analyzed but...WHY is this true? Further,
why isn't old YES music as new-sounding as Pete's old stuff (I think
back to some other YES albums which I considered exceptional {"Close to
the Edge", and even "Tales"} and, while some are still quite interesting
{Siberian Khatru, The Fish}, most don't make me wanna get up and play
'em again). Is it possible that YES's music was just DIFFERENT and that
this is what attracted me to them?--for some reason, I just can't accept
that answer. Maybe it was that YES's music WAS fascinating and I killed
its newness by over-listening.
Getting back to Pete, I believe that he is one of the few artists who
understands the use of silence in his music. A half-second of well-placed
silence is VERY effective. He also is a master of his instrument (his
voice) and plays it better than anyone I've heard in years.
Tony Sumrall ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,sun}!amdahl!acs
[ The opinions expressed are MINE and not necessarily those of Amdahl
Corp. ]