The only SM album I can play if my wife is in the house!
Funny about the wife comment - when I was in college my girlfriend used to request Third when things got ... ahem... frisky. How about that for WACK. Made my night great. :P
Was it Backwards she liked?
So..she wanted "it" Slightly All The Time?.........lucky guy.
"please do not understand me too quickly"-andre gide
Ian
Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on progrock.com
https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-a...re-happy-hour/
Gordon Haskell - "You've got to keep the groove in your head and play a load of bollocks instead"
I blame Wynton, what was the question?
There are only 10 types of people in the World, those who understand binary and those that don't.
Count me as another fan of the early SM, as well as the fusion versions.
Bundles is a killer of an album. Holdsworth was a revelation.
For those that have a problem with the fusion version of SM, is it because you don't like fusion? Or does have to do with it not sounding like early SM?
And if there were a god, I think it very unlikely that he would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence - Russell
I like me some fusion.All i can say is that when i first heard Holdsworth's playing on Bundles, something just didn't click for me.Perhaps a musician or someone more articulate than i can explain it better,but i couldn't get into it.No disrespect meant to Holdsworth,but, for me, guitar(in this style) in Soft Machine wasn't a good match.(emphasis on "for me").
I love "Seven" and that sounds very little like early SM.
Go figger.
"please do not understand me too quickly"-andre gide
Love this album and would rank it after Third and Seven when it comes to SM's studio albums.
Nucleus seemed like it was the farm team as it were for Soft Machine, but the problem with that statement is that Nucleus were just as good in my opinion. Four of the five members on Bundles played for Nucleus first, Ratledge being the exception.
"The wind is slowly tearing her apart"
Sad Rain
Anekdoten
Wyatt leaving after Fourth and forming Matching Mole while the band became almost entirely instrumental seems overlooked in this "analogy."
Agreed.
I suppose it could be argued that compared to Dean he was Kenny G.
That's an exaggeration, of course. I appreciate his style and subtleties, but the change was certainly big.
for me, Jazz Rock is just Jazz if it does not have Synthesizers and/or Rock Guitar
of course, if it has backbeat style Rock Drums then it is Rock as well, but gimme Synthesizers *and* Rock Guitar in my Jazz Rock or it's just Jazz to me
Bundles kicks mighty butt whereas the earlier SM works are interesting but a bit too close to Jazz
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
My review of Esoteric reissue here.
Our second biggest ever reissue in terms of sales guys, just after below Hawkwinds "Warrior".
^Like I said, I remember a lot of discussion on the old forum when you put this one out.
"Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
"[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM
I'd never seen this footage before
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.
My feeling these days is that, whilst this is a very good album by any standard, they perhaps should have thought about changing the name by this point. The relation to the original Soft Machine is pretty much null-and-void musically, with Ratledge contributing less and less. It's Holdsworth's (and then John Etheridge's) guitar which really makes the difference.
Yes except IOU wouldn't have been an appropriate name since Holdsy didn't write all the material. SM was an established brand with market penetration; you can't blame them for holding onto the name even as they tinkered with the musical direction.
Bookmarks