FEATURED CD - Caravan : In the Land of Grey and Pink

[Progatron]

Absolutely love this album, but then I love this band! (at least up until Blind Dog or so...)

[JJ88]

^This line-up reformed in the early 80s. Back To Front is half a decent album, I'd say...a shame the CD release was so blink-and-you'll-miss-it, though I did find the record dirt-cheap.

[Progatron]

Back To Front is half a decent album, I'd say..

That's one of the ones I really didn't like. The farthest I'd go in their catalogue is a track or two on Better By Far, but that's stretching it. I should in fairness point out that I still haven't checked out the last two they made in the 2000s. I just love the first six or seven so much that I've never needed to venture beyond them - they satisfy my Caravan itch, especially considering the live albums and BBC sessions, etc... killer band in their heyday.

[JJ88]

^I've only heard The Unauthorised Breakfast Item. Too long and mostly very mellow compared with their earlier stuff, but there's some nice songs on it. 'Revenge' especially holds up well, with Dave Sinclair contributing keyboards to that and 'Nowhere To Hide'.

Not heard the latest one.

[Sputnik]

I'm not particularly fond of Caravan, I don't own any. I gave this album a fresh listen this morning from the link in the OP. It's better in some ways than I remembered it. It is pretty cohesive and there wasn't anything that was a huge turnoff. I also like D. Sinclair's organ tone, though that probably the best thing about his playing here - and maybe about the playing overall.

For me, there just isn't enough happening in the rhythm section or with the compositions for this to be a super-compelling listen. It's nice, but it doesn't knock me out or anything. For me, Hatfield better balances the "whimsy" of R. Sinclair's vocals with something more meaty, here it just all seems a bit lightweight. I think Winter Wine was my favorite overall track here. Nine Feet Underground gets a little ploddy to my ears. Generally I just prefer what Hatfield and particularly National Health did with the Canterbury sound, to me there's just more going on. But I'm glad others dig this.

Bill

[JeffCarney]

I'm not particularly fond of Caravan, I don't own any. I gave this album a fresh listen this morning from the link in the OP. It's better in some ways than I remembered it. It is pretty cohesive and there wasn't anything that was a huge turnoff. I also like D. Sinclair's organ tone, though that probably the best thing about his playing here - and maybe about the playing overall.

For me, there just isn't enough happening in the rhythm section or with the compositions for this to be a super-compelling listen. It's nice, but it doesn't knock me out or anything. For me, Hatfield better balances the "whimsy" of R. Sinclair's vocals with something more meaty, here it just all seems a bit lightweight. I think Winter Wine was my favorite overall track here. Nine Feet Underground gets a little ploddy to my ears. Generally I just prefer what Hatfield and particularly National Health did with the Canterbury sound, to me there's just more going on. But I'm glad others dig this.

Bill

Always funny to see what's most important to people about music.

As much as I admire Hatfield and The North and to a lesser extent National Health, both combined simply can't compete with the best Caravan in terms of strong, original songwriting.

[JJ88]

^Agreed. Both are much more cerebral, I think. Not a bad thing in itself, but I think Caravan are more of a 'songs first' band.

[calyx]

As much as I admire Hatfield and The North and to a lesser extent National Health, both combined simply can't compete with the best Caravan in terms of strong, original songwriting.

Well, this is a self-evident statement in that songwriting was never Hatfield's main focus, and National Health was even more instrumental-oriented.

In every other respect, though, I must concur with what Sputnik wrote above.

[Baribrotzer]

But the track from plump, "L'auberge du Sanglier, A hunting we shall go, Pengola, Backwards, A hunting we shall go reprise" is alone worth the album.

Seconded.

Grey and Pink never really grabbed me, and in fact most of Caravan's stuff never did, but that particular track is one of my all-time favorite prog compositions. It just hangs together in some undefinable way, even though it was written by three or four different people and the slow section ("Backwards") is a cover.

[HeadingSouth]

Great album, it gets the atmosphere very right. This reminds me, I haven't listened to Caravan in a while.

[JeffCarney]

Well, this is a self-evident statement in that songwriting was never Hatfield's main focus, and National Health was even more instrumental-oriented.

I just think it's interesting where people place value. Since Caravan's main focus was not elaborate rock-jazz with harmonic influence from 20th Century composers, the same thing could be said about citing the fact that this was not featured.

In every other respect, though, I must concur with what Sputnik wrote above.

I hate to start criticizing bands I like, but there are so many aspects to music, as we all know. I'd argue that Hatfields borrowed pretty heavily from Caravan in some ways, and I'm not sure those specific elements were improved upon. While Dave Stewart was originally a highly original organ player, I find the obvious influence on some of his lead tones from the Hatfield period to be perhaps overly influenced by Dave Sinclair. This wasn't an aspect of his sound that featured on the first two Egg albums.

Then, of course, there is Phil Miller. A guitarist whom, while immensely capable of soloing through some of the most adventurous harmonic ideas rock has yet seen, was fundamentally a flawed player in many ways. Poor intonation and bends that simply weren't within the ideas at hand can surely be praised in any number of ways; especially by those who for some reason are convinced that a player of his presumed musical caliber or in a band of that presumed musical caliber could not possibly just not be that good. While Hastings was a somewhat limited player by comparison, he was more precise and capable in some important, melodic ways. Perhaps as opposed to being interested in music theory he was more taken by actually getting his bends consistent and fairly in the pocket? If this is true, I think he succeeded and it paid off.

I suppose in the end I don't much understand the in depth musical comparison here. But since this is a Caravan thread I've tried to balance things a bit. Caravan stand on their own very well, IMO. The "light" and overly "silly" criticisms I actually get. But this is part of who they were.

[NogbadTheBad]

Great album and one of my all time favorites....but then I love the Canterbury stuff .

Awesome. One of my all time favorite Canterbury albums.

Same goes for me.

[Conti]

I absolutely love everything Caravan put out up to Cunning Stunts. Great songwriting, clever arrangements, solid playing (not a single wasted note!), and nice feel.

In the land of grey and pink is not my favorite record released by them, but I see it is a one that pretty much sums up what I think of "Canterbury" as a musical style.

That said, I must admit I equally love Hatfield and the North.

[Scrotum Scissor]

I see it is a one that pretty much sums up what I think of "Canterbury" as a musical style.

This is one of those emerging marks I could never really stick to, although I certainly agree about the general greatness of ItLoG&P. To me, the so-called 'Canterbury sound' was always about combining the twisted and the quirky, as in Soft Machine's Volume Two or that debut Hatfield. It was sometimes senselessly intricate music - and often for the pure helluvit, not as some layered 'excuse' of egocentrism as with many an 'ordinary' UK progressive band. In this context, Caravan stood out for their ability to express simple and crystal clear melodic traits, always to-the-point and yet refined to the bone. One of the reasons why that "L'Auberge" remains one of my very favourite tunes of 70s progressive rock music, is the exact phenomenon that they proved a point by leaving it at 'that' configuration and not outdoing it. It's as if they were demonstrating what the "Backwards" section truly could be when performed in a different manner and exposed with differing intents. Hatfield, Softs, Gilgamesh, Egg, (some) Hillage, (some) Gong, and bG the maze that was Henry Cow - these were the technical essence of 'Canterbury' in their perplexingly complicated antics - Caravan were rather its spirit and soul.

I suppose.

[arturs]

Caravan were rather its spirit and soul.

I suppose.

That is a reasonable hypothesis. While I love almost all the Canterbury bands and recognize that Caravan were among the simplest in terms of instrumental firepower (at least the original quartet) there is some reason I go back to Caravan more than the others.

I had a laptop that gave up its ghost recently that I had loaded all the big Canterbury albums on. Not long before its final crash I noticed that on Media Player you could see the number of plays for each track. 9'U was by far the most played track with about 150 plays. The rest of G&P had about 100 each. In contrast the most played Hatfield track was Mumps with 22. I stress that both are great albums but the spirit, soul, whatever it is makes me go back to Caravan the most.

[mogrooves]

I absolutely love everything Caravan put out up to Cunning Stunts.

I made my exit with Cunning Stunts, a real disappointment to these ears.

[3LockBox]

I like Winter Wine and 9ft Underground, though the latter is a tad too long. But I never was one for that whole British cheeky, goofy lyric thing that made up a lot of Caravan's music.

[PROGMONSTER]

I don't know it's name, winter wine, title track are awesome

[Watanabe]

I second that. I always wished he would exchange solos with D Sinclair instead of 9FU being basically one long organ solo.
When I discovered Plump much later I realised that Hastings was perfectly able to play a decent guitar solo, which Grey and Pink does not suggest.

I'd have actually liked it to be Jimmy Hastings that gave more of a contribution to that track than the one brief solo he does.imo he was the strongest soloist involved in the canterbury scene...a master player.For Richard on the previous album really benefits from him and Sinclair sharing the soloing.

[Trane]

Quote Originally Posted by LeFrog

I second that. I always wished he would exchange solos with D Sinclair instead of 9FU being basically one long organ solo.
When I discovered Plump much later I realised that Hastings was perfectly able to play a decent guitar solo, which Grey and Pink does not suggest.

I'd have actually liked it to be Jimmy Hastings that gave more of a contribution to that track than the one brief solo he does.imo he was the strongest soloist involved in the canterbury scene...a master player.For Richard on the previous album really benefits from him and Sinclair sharing the soloing.

TBH, the 1990 reunion that was filmed shows that Pye Hastings has more guitar parts than could be apparent in the 71 studio version.

Ditto during the 00's, when guitarist Doug Boyle had some really interesting moments during their 9FU renditions, whether it was Sinclair on KB or Schelhaas a little later on.
Even with Boyle now gone from the band, Hastings and Richardson (recently now also a guitarist as well) tend to support each other and make it more interesting guitar-wise.

[Watanabe]

I just think it's interesting where people place value. Since Caravan's main focus was not elaborate rock-jazz with harmonic influence from 20th Century composers, the same thing could be said about citing the fact that this was not featured.



I hate to start criticizing bands I like, but there are so many aspects to music, as we all know. I'd argue that Hatfields borrowed pretty heavily from Caravan in some ways, and I'm not sure those specific elements were improved upon. While Dave Stewart was originally a highly original organ player, I find the obvious influence on some of his lead tones from the Hatfield period to be perhaps overly influenced by Dave Sinclair. This wasn't an aspect of his sound that featured on the first two Egg albums.

Then, of course, there is Phil Miller. A guitarist whom, while immensely capable of soloing through some of the most adventurous harmonic ideas rock has yet seen, was fundamentally a flawed player in many ways. Poor intonation and bends that simply weren't within the ideas at hand can surely be praised in any number of ways; especially by those who for some reason are convinced that a player of his presumed musical caliber or in a band of that presumed musical caliber could not possibly just not be that good. While Hastings was a somewhat limited player by comparison, he was more precise and capable in some important, melodic ways. Perhaps as opposed to being interested in music theory he was more taken by actually getting his bends consistent and fairly in the pocket? If this is true, I think he succeeded and it paid off.

I suppose in the end I don't much understand the in depth musical comparison here. But since this is a Caravan thread I've tried to balance things a bit. Caravan stand on their own very well, IMO. The "light" and overly "silly" criticisms I actually get. But this is part of who they were.

I've always thought Miller was the notable weak point of the bands he was in, though he did get a bit better with each one.He's a good player for providing appropriate colour and texture, but more often than not stiff and sloppy phrasing when taking the lead(Which doesn't sound so much as if he's trying to play unorthodox or "outside" as it does just struggling to keep up with the music and lacking technical command of the instrument) and usually with a scratchy weak tone too.Perhaps the weakest overall guitarist in the entire Brit jazz-rock scene.Had he played in a more divisive band i imagine his playing would have drawn as much debate about its merits as other perceived "good in some areas weak in others" stylists like Wakeman and Palmer.

[arturs]

Phil won't win the Eddie Van Halen speed competition anytime soon, but who cares. In most of Phil's solos every note means something--at least to him. He plays what he plays for a reason.

That being said, I think Phil's real area of genius is composition. He writes great pieces of music and that is why a lot of excellent players are willing to play with him. And stay with him for many years.

[calyx]

Phil won't win the Eddie Van Halen speed competition anytime soon, but who cares. In most of Phil's solos every note means something--at least to him. He plays what he plays for a reason.

Excellent points, although I also believe the critics above have a point too. In fact Phil himself would likely approve their criticisms of his technical limitations. He's always struck me as very modest in this respect, on several occasions telling me he'd worked on improving his technique. I'm sure he appreciates how technically superior people like Allan Holdsworth are, and his collaborations with other guitarists like Fred Baker or Doug Boyle suggest that he likes to work with guitarists who are better players in the conventional sense.

This being said, I can remember many instances of listening to Phil play in a live context with him delivering some truly magical playing, and part of the magic lay in the awareness that he could very well have completely fluffed it instead. It's a fact that he, on occasion, can make truly amateur-ish mistakes, but for me that isn't tantamount to being of amateur level overall. Just that he's uneven, with limited technical facility, but often capable of brilliance and certainly very unique and, on a good day, really amazing.

[JeffCarney]

Phil won't win the Eddie Van Halen speed competition anytime soon, but who cares. In most of Phil's solos every note means something--at least to him. He plays what he plays for a reason.

That's just the problem, IMO. Every note doesn't mean enough to Phil Miller. Or if it does he can't attain it technically. It's nothing to do with "speed." David Gilmour isn't known as a "fast" guitarist, but he's clearly worked long and hard at things like intonation and precision. Those things mean more than speed in my book anyway. But Miller's problem is bad notes; usually through inaccurate bending.

That being said, I think Phil's real area of genius is composition. He writes great pieces of music and that is why a lot of excellent players are willing to play with him. And stay with him for many years.

Agreed. And he can modulate through wicked, very difficult changes. The guy is a very good player on many levels, and a great player even. But when bands he has been in are held up as somehow more musically "advanced" than Caravan, I think it fair to point out that he was clearly lacking in precision and can even be difficult to endure, IMO.

[chalkpie]

I've always thought Miller was the notable weak point of the bands he was in, though he did get a bit better with each one.He's a good player for providing appropriate colour and texture, but more often than not stiff and sloppy phrasing when taking the lead(Which doesn't sound so much as if he's trying to play unorthodox or "outside" as it does just struggling to keep up with the music and lacking technical command of the instrument) and usually with a scratchy weak tone too.Perhaps the weakest overall guitarist in the entire Brit jazz-rock scene.Had he played in a more divisive band i imagine his playing would have drawn as much debate about its merits as other perceived "good in some areas weak in others" stylists like Wakeman and Palmer.

I am going to respectfully disagree here. Phil is one of my favorite guitarists, and he is nowhere close to "struggling" in his playing. Maybe your ears hear it that way, but mine most certainly do not. His phrasing and lines are absolutely unique and flat out gorgeous, as are his tones. Folks who are into the precision school of guitarists can find little to enjoy in players like Miller, Zappa, even Jerry (when he was 'on'), but to describe him as lacking technical command and struggling to keep up with the music is flat out wrong, and in many ways unfair to the man. Not that it matters, but I would bet my house that if you had a conversation with Dave Stewart, Richard Sinclair, or Pip (bless his soul), I think you find those lads vehemently disagreeing with you and conversely relishing in his playing.