Gong and Other "Prog" Rock

[sul G]

I'm not sure you can sum Zappa up in one track (I'm not sure it's a good sign to be able to do so, either), but you know his stuff better than I do - maybe you can!

I've given you a list of the Can albums I think are their finest. To limit it to two, I'd say their first - the super-stripped down, minimalist Monster Movie - and the third - the experimental Tago Mago - would give you a picture of the band in two different modes, but both at their best. Monster Movie only has four burningly hypnotic tracks, the last, Yoo Doo Right, being by far the longest, and in that sense the most extreme, though in no other senxse can I choose a 'best' track here (the re-working of Mary, Mary So Contrary is pretty powerful, however!) With the latter album, particularly, it's hard to pull out individual tracks, because although there's no 'prog concept' running through the album, it's the interplay between the tightly grooved first half and the looser, more experimental second half which gives it it's larger focus. But for the former, Halleluhwah, and of the latter, Aumgn, are perhaps the peaks.

But read around; others may have different opinions.

[Dr. Dread]

thanks, but i don't see myself spending $ on Can's produce (no offence)...i'll try to hunt down a few of those tracks you've mentioned and listen, but i don't think i'm going to like them, based on what i've heard thus far, it just lacks many of the things i like to hear.

What do you like to hear, by the way?  You seem to have a refined/limited palate.

[sul G]

thanks, but i don't see myself spending $ on Can's produce (no offence)...i'll try to hunt down a few of those tracks you've mentioned and listen, but i don't think i'm going to like them, based on what i've heard thus far, it just lacks many of the things i like to hear.

Hmm, seems to be a little case of the closed mind Zappa was so against! I'd have thought you'd be pleased to discover that there's another band out there who are up to the standard of the Mothers (and very easily so, too, in every respect). And, what's more, a band who have deep, strong Stockhausen links. But strangely enough, I see the opposite - it's as if you have your little established canon and can't dream of opening it up. Sorry if that's not the case, but it's how it appears.

[sul G]

Could see this one coming!

Just because I hate what I have heard thus far doesn't make me musically close minded. I like a wide breadth of things, heck I like Zappa don't i? and he was all over the map stylistically (while retaining his unique voice and staying true).

As were Can, very much so. Which is why I was trying to resist the idea that a couple of songs could sum them up. Perhaps you'd rather they could, because that would make them easier to dismiss! Dismissing music that isn't already in your canon often seems to be your route of choice, and it's an odd one compared with most people who come here eager for the chance of new discoveries; you often seem to be here to sneer at the possibility that there can be anything as good as what you already know.

BTW, I thought you said that the stylistically 'all over the map' Zappa could be summed up by a single song  Or was that something you said just for the hell of contradicting my suggestion that an artist of his imprtance - or a band of Can's - couldn't be thus easily defined?

[sul G]

Have you even heard that piece of Zappa's that I'm referring to?

Yes, I have. Not for a long time, mind you. Last time I listened to Zappa intensively was during a mammoth trawl through my brother's fairly awesome LP collection, and I haven't done that for a while.

And yes, you can sum up the essence of any artist who have their own unique musical voice with a little. You take the best of what they do and it's an accurate portrayal.

That might be true to an extent, but it's the same as saying that The Rite of Spring contains the essence of Stravinsky. IOW, it risks misleading a newbie.

Can are not like Zappa...

no, they are different, and (it's not just me saying this, James, it's pretty well accepted 'fact', as far as one can have such a thing) they are of equal worth and importance.

and with him it's not just one band Luke, he led many bands, when you refer to "the Mothers" you're talking 100s of musicians, different eras, styles etc...he wrote for every possible configuration-media you can think of. 30 year career...over 1200 pieces (the best of which are still getting live performances from ensembles of all sorts; jazz-rock-classical)...like Miles, he had a constantly shifting personnel of monster players who had incredible musical flexibility (what he wanted) bringing different things to the table for him to showcase and use ... he really used his groups as an instrument, but he also had a sense of humour and liked to have fun.

Hmm, yes, he's one guy, they are a band (they also had a floating membership to an extent, though the central core of four + singer remained the same). But I'm not sure what your point is here. I know Zappa wrote classical stuff - I find it embarrassing to listen to myself, I must say (that line about 'thank you to Mr Boulez for his gelp with the killer triplets' or whatever makes me cringe!); if we're playing that game then there are pieces in all sorts of genres by Can too, including classical pieces (operas by Irmin Schmidt, the keyboardist) which come about as close as I've ever heard to a convincing marriage of the two worlds. But it's not necessary to point to these ventures into other fields in order to argue for their musical brilliance. I'd hope an argument for Zappa's brilliance wouldn't have to rely on his stylistic fluidity either.

BTW, Can liked to have fun too, pretty wild fun at times (I'd point you to their Unlimited Edition album, or the two Cannibalism compilations to hear this side of them) - my daughter is a big fan of their song Turtles Have Short Legs!  And no, it's not one which contains their true essence! 

[sul G]

i dont even know where to start, without repeating what i already said or investing so much thought into this at the risk of being pointlessly longwinded...you're not that familar with Zappa's 'world' as I am? and that's ok. and i get the impression you're referring to just the shakey original late 60s unit...and not all of the many bands he assembled after that, where the calibre of musicians was generally much much better etc (already alluded to this on the 2nd pg i think!)..  Can is different and that's a good thing, but I'm not sure I would like a lot of it based on what i've heard thus far...i'll try some other tracks eventually...(my head is full of so much music already!)

No, that's all fine. As you say, I'm 'not as familiar with Zappa's world as you are' - though I'm obviously more familiar with it than you are with Can's. And for that reason I'm not going to say that I 'hate' the stuff that I do know, as you said you 'hated' the brief bits of Can you've heard - because I trust that if a large number of people whose views I trust hold something to be worthwhile, then it probably is, and - as with most canonically-recognised music I've disliked in the past - I will grow to love it in time. My own reaction is both beside the point and, as much as these things can be, surely 'wrong', so why bother talk about it?