Post by Ernani71 January 15, 2011 (1 of 5)
|
|
Which came first: Roxy Music's "For Your Pleasure" or Can's "Soon Over Babaluma"? One heavily influenced the other. The question is which? For Your Pleasure is from 1973, Soon Over Babaluma 1974, so it would seem that's the order of influence. But according to a quote I found by Brian Eno the "'Bogus Man' displayed similarities with contemporary material by the krautrock group Can." Hence it seems the influence worked as a kind of loop, Can's Tago Mago, Ege Bamyasi, and Future Days influencing Roxy's For Your Pleasure, with the latter in turn influencing Babaluma. In any case, listen to "Dizzy Dizzy" from Soon Over Babaluma and then to "Bogus Man" from For Your Pleasure to hear what I'm talking about. Babaluma (not to mention Tago Mago and Ege Bamyasi) also sounds a lot like the Talking Heads of Remain In Light/Speaking In Tongues. Soundwise, it's another primitive recording from Can, but, being analog, still worth owning on SACD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ernani71 said:
Which came first: Roxy Music's "For Your Pleasure" or Can's "Soon Over Babaluma"? One heavily influenced the other. The question is which? For Your Pleasure is from 1973, Soon Over Babaluma 1974, so it would seem that's the order of influence. But according to a quote I found by Brian Eno the "'Bogus Man' displayed similarities with contemporary material by the krautrock group Can." Hence it seems the influence worked as a kind of loop, Can's Tago Mago, Ege Bamyasi, and Future Days influencing Roxy's For Your Pleasure, with the latter in turn influencing Babaluma. In any case, listen to "Dizzy Dizzy" from Soon Over Babaluma and then to "Bogus Man" from For Your Pleasure to hear what I'm talking about. Babaluma (not to mention Tago Mago and Ege Bamyasi) also sounds a lot like the Talking Heads of Remain In Light/Speaking In Tongues. Soundwise, it's another primitive recording from Can, but, being analog, still worth owning on SACD.
Hey Hernandez,
How about cleaning your ears? Or listen to these SACDs on a good analogue Stereo amp, without DSP equalization, that all these crapy multi-channel receivers have.
I own all CDs and SACDs of the band and these THE CAN SACDs had stunning sound quality in glorious Stereo sound, and were recorded by the band(Czukay & team) in his own studio, a cinema room or in the Noervernich castle(Innerspace Studio).
All musical studios in the world are a room with sound-proof material, IF the sound-proof material are fancy expensive Sonex or egg-boxes and mattresses this is not relevant to the music quality and even to the street noise proofing, to my ears. THE-CAN used this simple sound-proofing as they do not have deep money funds as others Kraut-Rock bands as AmonDull-2, Popol Vuh, Tangerine Dream etc... in fact Irmin Schmift used Farfisa keyboards due lacks of money to buy Hammond B3 and Minimoogs. It is know they used a small PA system in live gigs too for many years.
Who do you wants to fool labeling these fine recordings as ''primitive''?? These recordings are minimalist and therefore audiophile recordings, they were recorded live in the band studio with some microphone, a mixer and a analogue tape recording, no cracky PCM, no Low Rez 44kHz sampling rate, no low speed tape, which are not 3ips, seems 5 or 7 inches per second, the fasted used by a rock band of the time.
If these recordings are ''primitive'', all recordings from Ruby Van Gelder and the golden age of the RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence also are the same.
In the albums Monster Movie and Delay1968 the band create the Punk-Rock, because this was the crude musical style of the vocalist Malcolm Mooney, with the next vocalist Damo Suzuki the band style changed to oniric and pastoral, so THE-CAN do not copy VU nor suffer influence from any rock musicians, but classical composers and ethnic music.
I fell you mean said theses recordings are simple direct to tape. When THE-CAN was at the height of success you still sucking beak as a baby, so I can understand if you do not like their music, and prefer these Pop-Rock bands you mention, which are Punk, Hardcore or Emo.
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome back, Gustavo, and happy new year. Yes, I will have to agree........Dampered and treated with Ultra Vivid Polish, there are NO disappointments in the sound department. These puppies sound great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
rammiepie said:
Welcome back, Gustavo, and happy new year. Yes, I will have to agree........Dampered and treated with Ultra Vivid Polish, there are NO disappointments in the sound department. These puppies sound great.
Hello good friend, hope everything are fine with you.
I can not return. Just clarifying things to this great Prog-Rock band.
Best Wishes, Gustavo
|
|
|
Post by Ernani71 January 17, 2011 (5 of 5)
|
|
FullRangeMan said:
1. THE CAN SACDs had stunning sound quality in glorious Stereo sound,
2. Who do you wants to fool labeling these fine recordings as ''primitive''??
3. In the albums Monster Movie and Delay1968 the band create the Punk-Rock, because this was the crude musical style of the vocalist Malcolm Mooney, with the next vocalist Damo Suzuki the band style changed to oniric and pastoral, so THE-CAN do not copy VU nor suffer influence from any rock musicians, but classical composers and ethnic music.
4. When THE-CAN was at the height of success you still sucking beak as a baby, so I can understand if you do not like their music,
1. Stunning? Glorious? No way, sorry.
2. These are not sleek recordings with huge production values. Call them "minimalist" rather than primitive if you like. There is tape hiss, which is no surprise and not a problem. But there are moments of distortion on Babaluma and some of the others, and I don't think it's due to my headphones. I never called these recordings bad. Potential buyers should not expect utmost studio polish. Keep in mind when and how these albums were recorded. The sonics are immediate, often vivid, but also rough and unpolished (sometimes perhaps on purpose). Of the ones I have, Future Days has the smoothest -- perhaps best --sound.
3. I have a fondness for Monster Movie and Delay because they more closely match the kind of music I listend to as a kid. After those two albums, the band's style does change, becoming less rock-oriented and more complex especially in the drums/rhythm and use of synths, but I would disagree with you that they were no longer influenced by pop or rock music. Their sound became more "funky." Ethnic music is an obvious influence on some tracks, and jazz above all on Future Days. I would caution against holding this kind of music up to the level of classical, even if the band was influenced by Karlheinz Stockhausen or other contemporary composers of "classical" art music. The Can still remains a pop band, albeit progressive and more creative and art-oriented than many.
4. Who said I didn't like their music? I have 8 of them and within limits like almost all. I will say though that I fell asleep listening to Tago Mago and woke up in the middle of it and thought I was listening to something truly evil and I had to turn it off (I'm reminded of how Damo Suzuki left the band to became a Jehova's Witness), so I don't much like that album even if it's considered one of their best. I'm not that into Soundtracks either.
Regards.
|
|
