Finally had the chance to check them out after all these years not too long ago, and picked up their first album on CD. Now I know people compare them so heavily to Yes....the first album might as well be a lost mid-70s Yes album. Still pretty decent though, anyone else a fan? Or are they too similar too the affirmatives for your tastes?
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
It's a great debut. We discussed it not too long ago in another thread. Obviously Yes-influenced but they have their own thing going too. Listen to what Yes had done in the previous few years: Relayer, Tales, CTTE. Starcastle doesn't really sound like any of those! GFTO is closer to the Starcastle sound but that was a year after the Starcastle debut. Maybe Yes had heard it?
Get the third one, Fountains of Light. Their best album.Originally Posted by IMWeasel
Yes!
I mean.... Seconded.
"I tah dah nur!" - Ike
It's actually their second - and for a long time it was my favourite of theirs but these days I think I marginally prefer the first one.
Yep, third one was Citadel.
Which was also the last good one imo. Agree that Fountains is their high point.
"My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician, and to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference"
President Harry S. Truman
Chronos I has the original recording of Fountains of Light with an extra track that was supposed to be on the album but was left off by someone that I don't remember who he was. He was associated with the record company and I believe he's the one who pushed to have the tracks ran together. I had asked Gary Strater about those recordings and he said that they originally wanted the songs separated and not ran together. The song which was cut off isn't bad either. He said something like "I guess the record company knew more of what we wanted than we did." So what I'm saying is Chronos I is worth getting for it's look into what Fountains was originally envisioned as.
Fountains of Light, their 2nd, is easily their best work, but the debut has a lot to recommend it as well. For one, it doesn't have Roy Thomas Baker as its producer...
I need to get Chronos, but I don't think it's still in print. Or am I wrong?
My first experience of Starcastle was when I found a second hand copy of 'Real to Real' (OR something like that) in a 2nd hand shop in Sheffield (UK) sometime in the 1990s. I don't know why I bought it, but I thought it was a bit like ELO and had a couple of catchy tunes. I was quite surprised, some years later, to find that they started off as a Yes tribute act.
The first Starcastle album is the best. It starts off with the band's best song, the exquisite 10-minute "Lady of the Lake," Starcastle's answer to "Roundabout," and the only Starcastle song that achieved a decent amount of airplay. All of side one of the first album is outstanding: "Elliptical Seasons" and "Forces" are good, as is "To the Fire Wind" on side two. Of all the Yes albums, the Starcastle debut most resembles Fragile. The band features outstanding musicianship, including excellent vocals and vocal harmonies, and lots of melodies and complexity. True, Starcastle sounds like Yes, but it's the sunny side of Yes it resembles, with a cleaner, more synthetic sound than Yes. There's nothing here as dark or as heavy as the introduction to "Heart of the Sunrise," for example.
The second Starcastle album, Fountains of Light, is the second best, and the best songs are all on side two: "True To the Light," "Portraits," and "Diamond Song (Deep Is the Light)."
The third album, Citadel, has a great cover but the songs are less adventurous. The best is the first, "Shine On Brightly." "Could This Be Love" is fun, though many on this forum would probably consider it beneath them.
The fourth album is atrocious; however, the last song, "When the Sun Shines at Midnight," is a gem.
I consider Starcastle one of the major progressive rock bands of the 1970s. Starcastle was not as crucial as Yes or Kansas, but the first two albums contain plenty of excellent material.
Starcastle and Triumvirat both tend to be a bit overlooked due to sounding a lot like one of the Big 5/6 prog bands, thus being accused of being too derivative. They both had some great albums which are right up there as quintessential 70s symphonic prog (Spartacus the apex in Triumvirat's case), but their runs were pretty short.
My friends and I played the hell out of the first two Starcastle albums back in the day. For us, they were picking up where Yes left off, and that was fine. I have those two albums on CD now and spin them on occasion. In the cold light of day (or maturity, take your pick) they don't seem as great as they did back then. But I'm not sure I'd quite classify them as "guilty pleasures" either. They do stand on their own in some respects, but you can't separate these Starcastle albums from Yes, and to me they don't ultimately measure up to Yes' best work.
If they'd done more serious Prog albums, then there would be more to talk about, but after FoL, they don't hold my interest. As such, The S/T and FoL are sort of oddities in the Prog canon; pointing to tremendous possibility, but ultimately leaving listeners in a sort of derivative nether world. But it's such a fun derivative nether world, that you just enjoy it for what it is, and silently wish the did more and forged a more original personality within the Progressive Rock rubric.
Bill
I think Real to Reel is pretty decent myself. Catchy AOR, most of it. Actually there is nothing I don't like by Starcastle. The first three are great fun. Song of Times was a strong comeback. Sad they got ripped off by their record company and could not do another one.
I love the first three Starcastle albums.
I don't know what's wrong with me but the Yes clones don't bother me as much as the Genesis clones...
The Prog Corner
this is because Yes is better than Genesis mister!
Or rather, probably more accurately, the Yes clones are better at it than the Genesis clones.
A short quotation from the respectful author: "If you put a bunch of progressive rock lovers into a room and asked them to vote for their all-time favorite classic prog group, I suspect that Genesis would win handily".
Or because there aren't as many Yes clones.Or rather, probably more accurately, the Yes clones are better at it than the Genesis clones.
Or, because the mechanics of copying Yes are easier than those of copying Genesis: To successfully copy Genesis takes real songwriting chops. However, a band's writing can be a bit disorganized and still successfully copy Yes - the real difficulty comes in equalling their level of inspiration.
I wonder if anyone has ever started a Yes vs Genesis thread here. If not we could do that. And then shut the whole PE down for good.A short quotation from the respectful author: "If you put a bunch of progressive rock lovers into a room and asked them to vote for their all-time favorite classic prog group, I suspect that Genesis would win handily".
Is this yet another Yes thread???
Anyway.
About Starcastle: Hearing them in retrospect, it struck me that their actual songwriting - as distinct from their Yes-like intros, middles, and codas - was straight out of the Midwest, and reminded me a bit of REO Speedwagon or the less adventurous Kansas songs. The result, to my ears, fell rather flat.
Agreed. Their songwriting was rather pedestrian, although it certainly carried earmarks of their influence. But the depth of the material was just not there, compared to classic Yes. Thus, it's a nice listen, but doesn't draw me back very often.
Gnish-gnosh borble wiff, shlauuffin oople tirk.
You can read Stephen Tassler discuss how the S/T was made at SeaOfTranquility
I saw them open for ELO back in the day ... they put on a fine show - I think it ended with a layered keyboard solo to the point where there were no members on the stage, just the 'trons and synths humming away; it was a cool effect
"Normal is just the average of extremes" - Gary Lessor
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks