JohnB wrote:
> On 27 Nov, 13:13, Dale Houstman
skypoint.com> wrote:
> >>ZepFloYes wrote:
>>
>>>These bands made songs which were overblown for the sake of being
>>>overblown. Some of them committed the fatal crime of mixing opera and
>>>rock... an absolute no no. Some of them made albums around stories
>>>which made no sense. Their lead singer dressed up in ridiculous
>>>costumes some times.
>>
>>>And above all all these bands made very very inconsistent albums with
>>>4-5 good and 3-4 genine crap songs on single albums or 10-12 good and
>>>6-8 on those double albums with stories. And most of these continued
>>>well beyond their peak to unfortunately inflict more pain on the
>>>audience. And most of all, all of them sucked in the 80s, 90s and 00s.
>>
>>>(from most to to the least)
>>>1. Queen
>>>2. Roxy Music
>>>3. Genesis
>>>4. Emerson Lake Palmer
>>>5. Jethro Tull
>>>6. King Crimson
>>>7. The Who
>>
>>>I chose only the mainstream ones here.
>>
>>Roxy Music is barely "mainstream"...they were a cult band then, and
>>still are now, albeit a somewhat successful one. And I have all their
>>albums, and I don't think there are many with the proportion of "good"
>>to "crap" you cite. "More exciting" and "less exciting" possibly, but
>>they produced a pretty consistenty interesting series of records, mostly
>>"letting down" some listeners when Eno left, and they tended to veer
>>towards a smoother and less overtly experimental sound. But the albums
>>continued to be overwhelmingly challenging musically.
>>
>>dmh
>
>
> I agree. Roxy were a band that pushed the edges - and it didn't
> always work but what innovators ever get it 100%% right? The first few
> albums all had moments of quality but none were "easy listening", even
> in the context of rock. They also had an "image" which, unlike many
> other bands of that time, was not a cover for lack of ability. Roxy
> were one of those bands where a Greatest Hits was a must - but a "Best
> Of" containing none of their hits would also have been essential
> listening.
>
> Some of what Ferry has done since has been interesting but the hit to
> miss ratio is probably not so high.
I agree about Ferry's solo career, although I still look forward to his
output. He's an interesting interpreter, and he attracts top-flight
musical talent to his projects: I don't anything he's done in the last
few years is quite as wonderful as "Bride Stripped Bare" but there is
"Boys and Girls" and (one of my favorites) "Bete Noire" - which
absolutely thrills me wife! He's sort of a new wave Johnny Mathias, when
it comes to generating sexual heat, even though he is - in general - a
rather "funky cool" sort of guy. He certainly holds a unique position in
modern rock, what with his "romantic" persona, and I have seen him in
concert (with and without Roxy Music) several times. He always gave a
good show, paying attention to staging as well as the music itself - as
one would expect from the old Art School fellow - and he provides a
solid evening of ambience.
dmh
