Soft Machine

[calyx]

The closest thing to a leader Hatfield had was Pip. He wasn’t initially in NH which started out as ci-led by Dave Stewart, Alan Gowen and Mont Campbell. There was no reason to call it Hatfield until by 1977-78, it had Dave, Pip and Phil plus à bass player and all of them writers.

[pmrviana]

They really shouldn't call themselves that. Seriously.

'Soft Machine songbook' or 'Legacy' or whatever, but not the mint name. That monumentally -legendary- band dissappeared decades ago, IMO.

Regarding the name thing, when I first saw them in 2005 with Hugh Hopper, Elton Dean, John Marshall and John Etheridge, it felt strange to me that they were using the "Legacy" name. With 3 guys who played together on "Five" plus one guy from "Softs", to me it felt 100% Soft Machine proper back then... Also, the setlist was heavily based on the Third/Fourth era, including two of the guys who played/composed on the original albums.

Of course now Hugh Hopper and Elton Dean are no longer in the band, but were replaced by Roy Babbington, who also goes way back in the Soft Machine/Canterbury history and Theo Travis, who had no prior connections but is absolutely great anyway. So I really don't see any reason why they shouldn't be using the Soft Machine name. If anything it seems weird they were not doing it before...

[rcarlberg]

It may have seemed sudden, but it wasn't, at least not in terms of several musicians being suddenly replaced by a bunch of others. They left one by one - Ayers in 1968, Wyatt in 1971, Hopper in 1973... Musically too, it was a gradual shift with each album. Each of these personnel changes, when they happened, seemed not to make a big difference musically as each departing member had been marginalised creatively, which is precisely where they left. There was nothing by Wyatt on "Fourth", nothing in two years from Ratledge, and Hopper's sole contribution to "Six" was a kind of trailer for his solo album "1984", called... "1983".

Soft Machine as a band has gone through so many really radically different permutations that defining anything as "Soft Machine-like" is problematic.

I figure if the current band play mostly SM material they deserve the name. SML played mostly originals (non-canonical) SFAIK.

[pmrviana]

I can speak from my own experience. A couple of years ago I travelled 600 km to see them playing in São Paulo and I didn't regret it (it cost me more than I could/should pay at the time). It was a great show with many outstanding tunes from their golden years plus fine new compositions. Great performances from all players.

In a nutshell, if any band with John Marshall, Roy Babbington and John Etheridge would come anywhere around me I would do my best to see them. We are talking of people who have played not only in Soft Machine, but also with Nucleus, Delivery, Eberhard Weber, Jack Bruce and many other luminaires. I have coutless albums with them.

These guys are not getting any younger and still play very, very well. Go see them!

Yes, I was also at that concert and it was probably the best I've seen by them. John Etheridge is an absolute monster!

[pmrviana]

I'll let you know definitively after I have seen them, and yes I am and will be grateful! But I think it is a more subtle issue than you portray. The thing is that Soft Machine was really 3 different bands in its lifetime:

1) Progressive pop, led by R. Wyatt 1966-1969.
2) Brit-Jazz, led by M. Ratledge or E. Dean 1969-1972.
3) Fusion, led by K. Jenkins 1973-1977; 1981; 1984.

I think it is very plausible that the current lineup will deliver musically as an extension of SM#3, by which I mean that the original vision and ethos of that band still remains in the current group. And will emerge organically throughout the performance. But yes for anyone expecting SM#1, no, this is clearly not that.

The current line-up doesn't fell at all like an extension of SM#3 as you put it, especially because it has nothing to do with Karl Jenkins. If anything I would say it feels more like an extension of SM#2, especially considering they had Hopper/Dean in the band not too long ago, and their set-list still leans heavily on that era.

But still, this band has its own personality and they completely make all music they play, from any era, their own. In that sense they are very very far from being a tribute band of any sort...

[GuitarGeek]

The closest thing to a leader Hatfield had was Pip. He wasn’t initially in NH which started out as ci-led by Dave Stewart, Alan Gowen and Mont Campbell. There was no reason to call it Hatfield until by 1977-78, it had Dave, Pip and Phil plus à bass player and all of them writers.

I never knew about the interim lineups of National Health that existed prior to the making of the first album, until Missing Pieces came out. My perception, I guess because I didn't know about any of this stuff until over a decade after it happened, and because I didn't really know specific info viz-a-vis the gap between The Rotter's Club and the first NH album, was that Sinclair left, and they simply replaced him and carried on with a new name. Obviously, I now know it was a lot more complicated than that, with the various people who played in the group during said gap, which included Bruford, Hillage, and a few others who didn't hang around long enough to make onto the first NH album.

And I'm still stunned that Neil Murray played on that first NH, who I mostly know as a hard rock/metal bassist, via his work with the likes of Whitesnake, Gary Moore, etc.

If anything I would say it feels more like an extension of SM#2, especially considering they had Hopper/Dean in the band not too long ago, and their set-list still leans heavily on that era.

Is that right? So they're doing stuff off Third, Fourth and/or Fifth? Now, that makes this even more interesting to me. I would have assumed they'd mostly be doing stuff off the post numbered albums, just because of the musicians involved. If they're doing stuff from when Dean and Hopper were in the group, that makes me even more interested in seeing this.

[Dave (in MA)]

So they're doing stuff off Third, Fourth and/or Fifth? Now, that makes this even more interesting to me. I would have assumed they'd mostly be doing stuff off the post numbered albums, just because of the musicians involved.

From 2012, with guest Keith Tippett, includes material from Third and Fourth.
I'd love to buy an official release of this show.

[pmrviana]

Is that right? So they're doing stuff off Third, Fourth and/or Fifth? Now, that makes this even more interesting to me. I would have assumed they'd mostly be doing stuff off the post numbered albums, just because of the musicians involved. If they're doing stuff from when Dean and Hopper were in the group, that makes me even more interested in seeing this.

Maybe "lean heavily" was a bit of an overstatement, and admittedly my memory may be a bit blurred from the three times I saw them... but at least Facelift and Kings and Queens have been played regularly by them, including the last time I saw them in São Paulo in 2015.

[Staun]

All of this is beginning to feel like the Deep Purple situation. Different players but still Purple.

[GuitarGeek]

All of this is beginning to feel like the Deep Purple situation. Different players but still Purple.

Deep Purple, Yes, Thin Lizzy, Rainbow, Boston, Electric Light Orchestra, Magma, Hawkwind, Black Sabbath, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Jethro Tull, Uriah Heep (during the 70's and early 80's, anyway, once Bernie Shaw and Phil Lanzon joined, the band's lineup stayed pretty consistent until Trevor Bolder passed away, 20 something years later)...who am I leaving out?

I was watching yet another documentary on Rush the other night (how many are there?! This is at least the third I've seen in the last few years), and there's a point where one of the commentators (someone from Prog Magazine, I believe), who suggests one of the reasons why Rush fans have stayed faithful with the group is, apart from Peart replacing John Rutsey way back in 1974, it's basically been the same three guys. "Rock music fans don't like change!", I think was his statement.

[Wah3]

Deep Purple, Yes, Thin Lizzy, Rainbow, Boston, Electric Light Orchestra, Magma, Hawkwind, Black Sabbath, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Jethro Tull, Uriah Heep (during the 70's and early 80's, anyway, once Bernie Shaw and Phil Lanzon joined, the band's lineup stayed pretty consistent until Trevor Bolder passed away, 20 something years later)...who am I leaving out?

A lot of classic rock bands from the 60s and 70s. Kansas is down to 2 members from the 70s. The Who has Roger and Pete although they were always the main guys. Steely Dan is just Donald Fagen and his band now. The Guess Who has just the original drummer now, no Randy Bachman or Burton Cummings, the main writers.

Some of the bands may go on without any original members. Look at the Pink Floyd tribute bands who charge quite a bit for their shows.

Since I've never had a chance to see any version of Soft Machine, I'm definitely interested

[GuitarGeek]

[QUOTE=Wah3;798280]

The Who has Roger and Pete although they were always the main guys.

Yeah, but they never had the "revolving door" thing that a lot of bands had, I guess that was the issue I was addressing, though maybe that's not what Staun was talking about when he brought up Deep Purple.

Steely Dan is just Donald Fagen and his band now.

Well, "Steely Dan", after the first couple albums, was always just Fagen and Becker plus whichever session guys who were in the studio with them that particular afternoon.

The Guess Who has just the original drummer now, no Randy Bachman or Burton Cummings, the main writers.

Man, I remember seeing a late 70's album by The Guess Who at Wax Stax way back when. I knew Randy Bachman had left the band at some point in the early 70's (actually, I knew Randy from BTO first, before I ever knew about The Guess Who), but I was surprised to find out this record didn't even have Burton Cummings on it! And I couldn't even tell you if the original bassist or drummer were on the record or not. As I recall, the front cover had them playing on a stage in what looked like a school gymnasium or something like that, and on the back cover, there's individual pictures of each band member, with either the guitarist or bassist, apparently photographed in a guitar store, checking out a Gibson RD model.

BUt yeah, I suppose if the point is that a lot of those legacy bands basically have just one or two original guys from the "real" band, yeah, I guess that's just about everyone. I mean, at some point, someone becomes unable to perform (either due to bad behaviour or health issues or whatever), or becomes disenchanted with the road. I remember Bun E. Carlos saying the reason he left Cheap Trick, finally, was because he got sick of having to argue with Robin Zander all the time (apparently, the two of them never got along well in the first place, but about 10 years ago or so, Bun E. finally got to the point where he got tired of dealing with Zander).

Some of the bands may go on without any original members. Look at the Pink Floyd tribute bands who charge quite a bit for their shows.

Well, to be fair, most of the Pink Floyd tribute bands I know of have high overhead. The good ones don't just play the music, they put some kind of "show" that at least attempts to recognize that part of the Floyd legacy. I mean, you can't recreate the 77 tour in a venue that holds only 4,000 people, but you can have a projection screen, and fog and lasers, and maybe even a downsized pig or schoolmaster or whatever. And if you're really trying to recreate the sound of the records, you're gonna have a lot of people onstage, too, at least two guitarists, a couple back up singers, a sax player, possibly two or more keyboardists, etc. So yeah, you're probably going to ask a higher than usual ticket price (so do The Musical Box, for the record) than just four or five guys going onstage and playing the music with no floor show or anything.

I've only ever really seen one Pink Floyd tribute band, a group called Floyd Droyd, I think is what they called themselves, and they were from, I think, Indianapolis. Anyway, later in their set, they did Echoes, and during the "seagulls' section, I thought I heard the keyboardist playing something on the organ that most definitely wasn't part of Echoes. So after the show, I go up to him and I ask, "Did I hear you playing a little bit of A Saucerful Of Secrets?". He smiled and said, "You're the first person who's ever noticed that!".

Since I've never had a chance to see any version of Soft Machine, I'm definitely interested

Yeah, I'm getting more and more interested in seeing this.

[Dave (in MA)]

Ratledge sighting:

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bm_UFidgmNx/

[polmico]

Ratledge sighting:

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bm_UFidgmNx/

That would be a fun album were such an album made. Really enjoy the album that Lucas and Hammill did a few years back.

[arturs]

^^^ Yes a Ratledge/Lucas project would be very cool indeed but I think it's cool enough to see what Mike looks like these days. He keeps such a low online profile.

[Jay.Dee]

A curious bit related to one of the band's permutations this century:

A few weeks later I received an eMail from Tatsurou, introducing me to Masa Matsuzaki. I will never forget his eMail: "My name is Masa Matsuzaki, my company is interested in Soft Machine reunion. If you can make it possible, my company will arrange a deal with Universal Japan, and give you big advances. Well, I was very excited, and so I contacted Elton, even though we still hadn't recruited the fourth band member yet. Keith Tippett still wasn't interested, but Hugh Hopper and John Marshall certainly were.

The following month, July 2001, I met Ken Kubernik back in LA. When I explained the situation, he immediately became excited and suggested that he could contact his old friend in London, Dave Stewart. When I suggested Dave Stewart to the other three, John Marshall, who was mainly a jazz drummer, wasn't very familiar with Dave or his playing. But Dave Stewart was "persona non-grata" with both Hugh and Elton. It is one of those things that only musicians know — or don't know, maybe — why they dislike or hate each other.

https://softmachine-moonjune.bandcam...-john-marshall

I read about the tensions between Hugh Hopper and Karl Jenkins or Mike Ratledge, but wasn't aware of any Dave Stewart involvement in the Soft Machine camp's affairs, except for his brief cameo on Hopper Tunity Box sessions in 1976.

[pb2015]

Elton Dean played on the National Health album D.S. al Coda in the early 80's, otherwise I don't know offhand of any interactions he or Hugh had with Dave Stewart. Pretty sure Dave would have never agreed to play that style of music by 2001 anyway.

[calyx]

Elton Dean played on the National Health album D.S. al Coda in the early 80's, otherwise I don't know offhand of any interactions he or Hugh had with Dave Stewart. Pretty sure Dave would have never agreed to play that style of music by 2001 anyway.

Elton jammed with Hatfield a few times, it seems, although no recordings of any instance of that happening are known to exist. He and Stewart are both on "Hoppertunity Box" but not on the same tracks, I seem to remember. There was a recording session for a Peter Blegvad project that was never released (I've never heard it) in the summer 1978 involving members of National Health and, I seem to remember, Elton too. I don't think Elton and Dave played in the same room for "D.S. Al Coda", but Elton guested on the Edinburgh 1983 concerts by National Health, of which a recording supposedly exist, though I have yet to hear it.

As for Hugh, well, there was "Hoppertunity Box", and Jakko managed to get both of them to play on his remake of "As Long As He Lies Perfectly Still" which was recorded in March 2000, which may have been the basis for considering Dave Stewart. Based on my own discussions with Hugh, I think the wording used by Leonardo in the interview is a bit strong. It seems to imply a personal dislike of Dave from Hugh. My impression was that Hugh had no desire to work with Dave primarily because of the very controlled way Dave has been working since the 1980s. He was happy with Dave's contributions to "Hoppertunity Box", but Stewart was at the time a gigging musician that interacted with other musicians in real time, with an element of spontaneity which, after decades of mainly working on the Stewart-Gaskin material, was no longer on the cards. I remember at Pip's funeral, when several musicians were assembling to play a bit of music, telling Dave it would be cool for him to join in, but of course he had not interest in participating, and used the prospect of a long drive back to Cornwall as an excuse not to play, and I think he no longer was around by the time the mini-performance began, some of which I immortalised on YouTube (Phil M, Richard S, Alex Maguire, Fred Baker and Mark Fletcher playing "God Song").

[Dave (in MA)]

A new Soft Machine single is on the way...

https://myonlydesirerecords.bandcamp...y-all-the-time

[lovecraft]

Not a collection of words you'd expect to hear together in 2024, that's for sure.

[polmico]

http://www.waysidemusic.com/Music-Pr...spc-530-v.aspx

I'll wait for the CD version, but the words "auto-buy" and "duh" pop immediately into the head.

[Zeuhlmate]

https://salt-peanuts.eu/komplett-sof...971-er-pa-vei/

4 LP/CD Soft Machine from Høvikodden (Norway) 1971 on its way.

[Dave (in MA)]

By Ian Beabout

[Blind Badger]

I have a question for calyx or anyone else who might know: in the liner notes of the Live in Paris CD, you wrote that "the other half [of Fifth] was later re-recorded by the new line-up". Does that mean that there exist alternative recordings of the Fifth B-side with Phil Howard on drums that might one day be released? And conversely, are there alternative recordings of the A-side with John Marshall on drums?

[calyx]

I have a question for calyx or anyone else who might know: in the liner notes of the Live in Paris CD, you wrote that "the other half [of Fifth] was later re-recorded by the new line-up". Does that mean that there exist alternative recordings of the Fifth B-side with Phil Howard on drums that might one day be released? And conversely, are there alternative recordings of the A-side with John Marshall on drums?

There is no clear/definitive answer to these questions. My assertion was based on a contemporary article or review that described the situation this way, but no one in the band I asked specifically remembered the side B tracks having been recorded with Howard. Certainly only what was needed to complete the album was recorded with Marshall. We unexpectedly got an outtake from the sessions, an alternate take from "All White", on the last reissue of the album, evidently this is all they had in the vaults and maybe nothing else was recorded.