Industrial Deals Beauty Save up to 90% on textbooks STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book House Cleaning TheTick TheTick TheTick  Introducing Echo Show Limited-time offer: All-New Fire HD 8 Kids Edition, starting at $99.99 Kindle Oasis hots Water Sports STEMClubToys17_gno
Customer Discussions > Pop forum

Did Deep Purple have the biggest change in their sound in Rock History?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 33 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 23, 2013, 2:03:51 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 23, 2013, 2:12:55 PM PST
I agree with you completely. The change from mk 1 and the concerto album and then in rock was staggering even though I only found out about mk 1 in 1975 or so. I went back and thought I hate mk 1. It doesn't sound like deep purple I love. It wasn't until I was a little older that I realized how good mk 1 was. The difference betw Hush or Kentucky woman to Speed King or Child in Time is staggering. The change from mk 1 to mk 2 is like the difference from the yardbirds and led zeppelin. Jimmy wanted to keep yardbirds going and Zeppelins early shows were billed as New Yardbirds. If jimmy would've just replaced Relf with Robert plant and was given the control over the bands sound you would be talking about the Yardbirds' last album and zeppelin 1 just like we r talking about the difference from purple Mk 1 and mk 2.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 4, 2012, 8:18:10 AM PST
Timot-Rex says:
Ed, I agree with you on Brendon Benson. His more recent albums leave me flat. They're virtually hook-less and you can't do power pop without hooks. Did Jack White steal his Mojo?

Posted on Dec 4, 2012, 8:13:42 AM PST
Timot-Rex says:
I have to agree with MissMiscellanea. The Beatles didn't just change/evolve their own sound. Arguably they reinvented pop music over the course of, what, 8 maybe 9 years? Going from the simplistic 'Love Me Do' to the near classical 'Eleanor Rigby' in about 5 years time is simply astounding. In a sense the Beatles (and George Martin) elevated pop/rock by at least 50 IQ points in a very short time.
The same can be said to a narrower degree about the Beach Boys, the Rolling Stones, the Kinks, the Who and other from that era. I'm no slave to "classic rock" by any means but when it comes to radically evolving music over a short period of time these artists did it in spades. Must have been the recreational chemicals.

Posted on Nov 30, 2012, 9:01:43 PM PST
E. Dill says:
@Michael Topper:

<<I am going to speed this up>>

That's what I said on 11/20. But actually I am. I'm on my M's now for 2012. It won't be long before I'll be posting my Top 100 for the year.....or at least my Top 10.

Posted on Nov 20, 2012, 12:51:35 PM PST
E. Dill says:
@Michael Topper:

In my continued quest to come up with a Top 10 or 20 for 2012, here were my "B"s I gave a quick refresher/listen to:


BT is mostly a collection of others tune remixed. The Bolin album is an oddity with others adding instrumentation to an unfinished or unreleased song. The Big Brother album is a 1968 live recording not previously released in total....some was on a Joplin box set. My favorites from this group are:

Band of Skulls (love the harmony between the two singers)
Beach House
The Big Pink

I must admit I was a bit disappointed by the Buckethead album. Why? Because I'm so used to his entertaining vamping on stage that to see him doing ambient stuff required a lot of adjustment to my expectations. And, I didn't agree with the reviewer I read on the Brendon Benson album. I remember his stuff as being stellar pop music with great hooks, great melodies, etc. This did NOT sound like what I remembered from him in the past.

I am going to speed this up.


Posted on Nov 19, 2012, 7:26:31 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 19, 2012, 7:33:50 PM PST
E. Dill says:
Michael Topper:

I had originally "found" RYM some years ago, gave it a shot and then, for some reason, forgot about it. Then a regular on one of the sites started promoting it (Shin), actually suggesting he preferred it to one of my then favorites, which I liked for "his" (it IS a one man show) rather expansive lists which he'd begin around February of a new year and keep adding to and jockeying positions around until the end of the year (actually he'd change them even after the year was open as he discovered albums he'd missed). So, I went back to RYM and DID, in fact, appreciate their extensiveness, i.e., you get the "Top 1000" albums or singles of the year as compiled by listeners AND by some murky "adjustment" made by the site itself to account the weighing of the worth of individual votes based on their past prejudices, etc. But the one thing I liked initially and then began to dislike was their seeming obsession with metal....especially death metal and black metal and such.

Sometimes, I like to go to the site, plug in a year, then plug in a specific genre (when you enter a letter, it will automatically pop up all the genres THEY use starting with that letter, so there's no guess work). With most genres (except something broad like alternative rock or jazz or singer-songwriter, the number for a specific year will probably be less than 1000, but you'll usually get some that didn't make the general 1000 list. As an example, I have a John Abercrombie album from 2012 (if you don't know, he's a jazz guitarist and has been around for quite some time) which I thought was quite good (I like the fact that there's lots of sax, too) and it didn't make the general Top 1000 list but was definitely on the 2012 list for jazz.

I used to do genre searches with the old where you'd plug in a genre, get a fairly comprehensive list of people working in it and then as you got to their discography, it would list OTHER artists influenced by them in the same genre and you'd keep adding more and more artists that were more and more obscure. My cup of tea! But allmusic has changed format, gotten much more glossy but I'm not sure better. I don't use it as much anymore. I don't even feel comfortable there because it's not the site I used so extensively for several decades. (People used to think I worked for them).

I wonder if nodepression still has their site. When the No Depression magazine folded (it WAS a great, great magazine about alternative country/americana/roots music/no depression. The last time I checked, they did have a website that post dated their magazine's demise. No Depression was the only magazine I remember ever subscribing to whose ads were as can't miss to me as their articles and reviews. I don't think I ever investigated an artist/group in one of their ads that proved to be uninteresting to me. Not many mags can say THAT.

Years ago, while in a head shop looking at fanzines, I found an obscure magazine devoted to "pop music" entitled "Yeah Yeah Yeah". I picked it up because the issue included their year end "best ofs". In leafing thru it, I saw that I was familiar with maybe 40% of their Top 50. Of those 40%, I liked every one and had them in my collection. So I bought it, took it home and began, over time, collecting EVERY EFFIN one of the other 30 unknowns. It had a lot to do with my obsession with new music. The notion that I could MISS so many albums that could make me so happy as much investigation as I thought I was doing already. Unfortunately, Yeah Yeah Yeah went by the wayside too. I still have about six old copies of it which I cherish dearly along with some old copies of Opinion Magazine (gone) and lots of No Depression's.

I still remember going to Lottie's Candy Shop in Cleveland when I was 9 to have a fountain drink, play the jukebox (6 plays for a quarter) and read the latest copy of Hit Parader magazine with lyrics and some record reviews. My obsession probably was fed there along with my obsessive channel surfing with my radio at home and writing down songs I liked that I'd never heard of before. Things haven't changed much, musically speaking. No, not even in the quality or variety of music available at least as I hear it.

ed (rambling again)

Posted on Nov 19, 2012, 4:27:11 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 19, 2012, 4:29:05 PM PST
@E.Dill: "I guess when I said "sound quite good to me", I should have made it clear I meant SOUND as in listening to them."

Ah, I see. I literally thought you just meant that they sounded interesting in the sense of something you might want to check out, but hadn't yet. I *was* a bit puzzled by that since I do know that you do a lot of your sampling on youtube. Sorry for the misunderstanding--but I'm glad you liked what you heard!

I also like combining rateyourmusic and youtube. Great way of finding new music. In fact, half the albums on my top 10 for this year were ones I found simply by checking out rateyourmusic's list for the year and then sampling all the albums on it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 19, 2012, 1:26:17 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 19, 2012, 1:30:06 PM PST
E. Dill says:
@Michael Topper:

<< I did a little research on the 3 or 4 albums/artists you listed that I didn't know. They all sound quite good to me...>>

I guess when I said "sound quite good to me", I should have made it clear I meant SOUND as in listening to them. Yeah, when I decided to check them out I DID go to youtube and was quite impressed. I only listened to one song of each of them. I'll go back and listen to the rest of them.

Some music can be "tasted" by those 30 second clips you get elsewhere but it is particularly problematic with groups that are progressive. You need to at least sample a couple of minutes to get even the faintest idea of their sound.

Yes, I AM a big youtube afficianado. All of my arguements about how easy it is to find good music today are based in large measure by the existence of youtube. Who ever needs to go buy an album without any sense of how they sound?

Sometimes, just for kicks, I'll find some obscure single or album listed on for a year in the 50's, 60's, etc. as one of the "best 1000" for that year and more times than not, youtube has it. It's quite amazing. Maybe that's become a schtick amongst those who post the most music on the find songs/artists/albums that most people have never heard of. Now that I think of it, I DO tend to use and often as a tandem. I find the names on one and listen to them on the other. Of course, if you already have a name, you can go directly to youtube and plug them in.

Recently, I went to a fan fare kind of thing at a local UAW Hall with my daughter....someone had given her tickets. It was all about "Ghoulardi", a character played by a local (Cleveland) dj who got a gig on tv as the host of a Friday night horror movie show. He'd dress up looking more like a beatnik than a ghoul and sometimes superimpose his image (miniaturized) into the movie's action. I remember him tickling the "50 foot woman" under her chin. Anyway, at $15 a ticket, I was quite impressed by the number of people attending the affair. Lots of ghoulari fans still alive (unfortunately HE isn't) and the point of this boring story is that I almost bought a dvd of his show until I asked the seller and she admitted that only a small portion of the entire disc had actual footage of the program. Most had been destroyed. It didn't surprise me because some years ago they did a documentary about him and the clips were far and few between and after that disappointment, I went directly to youtube and found their's even less impressive. Ghoulari left Cleveland for LA to make some real money as an announcer (he did, among others, the opening of "The Love Boat" and dozens of others and made millions just doing that.) His son, Paul Anderson, has written/directed some very good movies.


Posted on Nov 19, 2012, 2:04:23 AM PST
Journey changed alot from their first 3 albums which weren't very commercial. They were mostly an instrumental band. Steve Perry gave them a real commercial sound and the first 3 Journey albums are virtually forgotten about.

Grand Funk were a lot more commercial after terry Knight left (for the worst). If Grand Funk would've kept doing what they were doing they'd still be around.

And Ritchie tried to revive Rod Evans with Joe Lynn Turner. After turning his back on commericialism he suddenly did a 180 with Down to Earth. But at least Graham Bonnet sounded hard core. Joe Lynn just sounded commercial.

Pink Floyd is another band that changed their sound a couple of times. First after Syd Barrett left. Then with Dark Side of the Moon. They were commericial, then a cult band, then an underground FM band that suddently had the biggest selling album in history.

Posted on Nov 18, 2012, 12:41:51 PM PST
What about the Beatles? From She Loves You to Tomorrow Never Knows to Revolution 9.

But I wouldn't really call it a change in direction so much as artistic growth.

Posted on Nov 18, 2012, 9:47:58 AM PST
@E.Dill: all of the albums on my list you hadn't heard can be found on youtube, if you're just looking to sample them. I do not even have the Echolyn or Anglagard myself, I just heard them from youtube. Here's a link to one of the shorter songs on the Echolyn album: ("Past Gravity")

You can see links to other tracks from the album next to it. Also, here's a link to the full Anglagard album: ("Viljans Oga")

With Guillemots you have to look up the individual songs but a search for "Guillemots Hello Land" should pop them all up.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012, 8:25:55 AM PST
E. Dill says:
@Michael Topper:

Typically, instead of working on my Top 10/20 for 2012, I did a little research on the 3 or 4 albums/artists you listed that I didn't know. They all sound quite good to me but, unfortunately, quite expensive. I think the Aglagard won with the highest ticket price, something like $22+. I only checked and but they usually beat the rest. Maybe I'll find a "flier" in one of my bargain stores that specialize in both used and new cd's. As it is, I'll keep the names on my longish short list and pounce when the time (price) is right.

The weirest one on my A list for 2012 is Alcest. If someone would have suggested a group that is both death metal and shoegaze, I'd have bent over in laughter. Shows you how much I know about genres and musical possibilities.


In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012, 12:20:35 PM PST
This is an accurate and good point, ML. When I look at the Queen catalog from the debut to Made In Heaven, I define the changes that the band went through as a natural, progressive evolution. They held my interest all of the way through...

Posted on Nov 17, 2012, 11:15:22 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 17, 2012, 11:16:14 AM PST
@E.Dill: "But, again, sometimes other's opinions sound like objective statements, i.e., "they're boring" or "their last record was a fluke", etc."

But I *did* put qualifiers in front of those statements. I said "*I thought* Animal Collective's last album was weak" and "*I find* a lot of post-rock a crashing bore". I always do this because I've run into trouble before on these forums where not putting some form of "IMO" in my statements has led to big misunderstandings. It's *always* going to be a given with me that anything I say is "IMO", whether I explicity say it or not (and I try to, in some form or other), although I understand that not everyone on these forums thinks this way (methinks you've been debating with people like werranth too much, LOL).

As for my top 10/100 lists, it is pretty hard to rank albums and I have all the same problems you do with it, but I find it an interesting exercise. Sometimes I use specific criteria to separate the releases (ie. "this album has all great songs, as opposed to this album which has all great songs but one"), and sometimes I just go by an intuitive "feel" that I prefer one album just slightly more than another. I'm never under any illusion that my top 100 is set in stone and it can easily change according to the mood of the day (although, interestingly, my top 40 or so has remained pretty unchanged over the past ten years). So I understand that not everyone can make ranked lists, and yours does not have to be ranked, just maybe ten or twenty albums from the past year you find yourself coming back to.

And no, there is no way to prove that The Beatles are better than Bobby Sherman. I'm with you in that I believe there is no possible way to judge music on a completely objective basis (or pretty much any objective basis at all). Any list I make or comment I say about music is purely subjective.

That being said, The Beatles are of course unquestionably and indisputably better than Bobby Sherman. ;)

Posted on Nov 17, 2012, 5:20:29 AM PST
E. Dill says:
@Michael Topper:

It's mostly me. I'm not sure if it's sensitivity or the old "objective vs. subjective" arguement. I mean, yes, one would suppose that anyone and everyone understands that one's personal taste in music is, by its very nature, subjective, so there isn't a need to always add words like "in my opinion". But I'm convinced that a lot of people have come to the conclusion that they CAN judge music objectively. Admittedly, I always test this by something like "there is no way anyone can prove that the Beatles music is better than Bobby Sherman." Even those who believe musical tastes must be subjective in nature will say "wait a minute here. You've gone too far". And I truly don't think so.

I can't, for the life of me, explain why I do or don't like certain music. And it's not a genre thing, although I KNOW that I have a much better success rate with certain genres than others. Take "alt-country" vs. "death metal". It's not even close. Or "indie pop" vs. "rap". It's strictly past history. I never give up on those "lesser" styles of music, though. I "force" myself to keep investigating what's happening in their realm. And, of course, the extent of my likes and dislikes isn't consistent. The other day, I was going thru my 2012 "b"'s and got stumped by the band "Baroness". I realized that I always seem to blow hot and cold with them. I'm guessing its mood.

What I found in doing the 897 exercise, was that I don't parcel specific albums into tight groups that well, i.e., these are the BEST, i.e., 10's and these are a notch below, etc. I like a LOT of music and find such gradations quite difficult since I can't find objective criteria to help me. When I say I like a vocalist better than another, I don't try to analyze why. Something about the voice appeals to me. Same with instrumentation. I often criticize the use of violins in rock. Other times, they work wonderfully for me.

So that's it. I wasn't trying to give you a hard time and I know you don't want me to copy your list. But, again, sometimes other's opinions sound like objective statements, i.e., "they're boring" or "their last record was a fluke", etc. and I tend to react badly to them. It's mostly my "quirk", not yours.


Posted on Nov 16, 2012, 4:36:15 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 16, 2012, 4:38:15 PM PST
@E.Dill: Don't be so sensitive! Even in a half-kidding way. ;) Sure, there's a lot we disagree on. But there's also a lot we agree on, too. But your lists have led me to some great musical discoveries. What I like about you is that you are just so knowledgable about what's out there, literally hundreds and hundreds of releases per year. It's so many that even if I disagree with you on 80% of it (which I don't), that 20% is still going to consist of dozens of albums.

And we can both agree that "After The Gold Rush" is a masterpiece. It's at #89 on my All-Time Top 100 Rock list, which is actually a really high placing. Here's a link to my entire list:

I'm not asking for your top 10 for 2012 to look like mine. In fact, the more different it is, the better, because then it means more albums I can check out. But just make it as honest to your taste as you can! I'm just curious.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012, 3:42:59 PM PST
E. Dill says:
@Michael Topper:

I'm wondering why you care about what I surely seems we're often on different musical planets. I mean, Sigur Ros is boring, Talk Talk's later albums were boring and Animal Collective's one decent album was a fluke. I'm guessing I'll try my best to keep mine a Top Ten, unless I can fill it some of the same ones you have. Otherwise, I don't know if I can stand that many insults to my musical preferences.

BTW, I'm sure you will NOT like Asteroids Galaxy Tour.....I'll bet its too lightweight and awfully boring.

ed. (partly kidding)

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012, 3:14:03 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 17, 2012, 5:53:56 AM PST
AlexMontrose says:
Deep Purple completely changed their sound from Mk I to Mk II. It's the same as any other genre and obvious to anyone who recognizes the nuances and progression involved in hard rock songwriting. You could hear and see the seeds being planted in some of the Mk I songs, the improvisational nature of some of the tracks that usually featured Lord and Blackmore trading off.

But in between their last Mk I album and In Rock they also did a full orchestra album. So no one really knew at the time what direction they were about to take. Then In Rock exploded on the scene and all the flowery cover songs, "romantic" tinged vocals of Rod Evans and their somewhat schizophrenic identity through those early albums was blown to bits. They gave us a laser focused hard rock masterpiece with In Rock and that was the beginning of the many millions throughout the world who would be having friendly so friendly debates about who ruled the land of hard rock megabands. Zeppelin, Sabbath or Purple. Don't think that's changed much...still pretty much would hold true today as far as pioneers of a certain brand of hard rock that was being heard for the first time....and metal I guess if someone wants to use that for Sabbath. And it certainly would not have been the case had Purple continued with the less focused and somewhat inconsistent identity that marked some of the Mk I albums.

Blackmore was famous for saying "if it's not exciting it doesn't belong on this album" when referring to In Rock. Not only was it off the charts exciting but the music became a blitzkrieg of musical improvisation/interplay, rhythms and pummeling sounds. To not recognize the difference between so many of their earlier songs (if you know any of them) and what took place on In Rock is......
well ;)... let's just say if you're a fan you still remember the day that Deep Purple started to take the world by storm with their new direction and it certainly was a *major* change. It's common knowledge that many a band changed their sound/music direction from one album to the next but the monumental shift in identity from DP Mk I to Mk II was nothing short of legendary.

BTW...E. Dill love to see Talk Talk being brought up from time to time. "It's my life" is a great album but yeah they certainly sort of went into an almost resentful phase (especially Spirit of Eden) when writing songs, with some sort of coherence seemed to be something they couldn't stand doing anymore. To me and in other threads I've called it almost "anti" music. After It's my life I had a lot hope for these guys but they were never the same IMO. Wouldn't mind a reunion though. Could be interesting.

*And this thread would probably get more action in the Classic Rock forum*

Posted on Nov 16, 2012, 3:07:51 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 16, 2012, 3:09:01 PM PST
@E.Dill: I see you have a ways to go, if you're still on the "A"'s, LOL! Anyways, as usual there's many acts here I've never heard of. However, I thought Animal Collective's new album was very weak (I'm really not a fan of the group and didn't think any of their material was worth it until "Merriweather"--and now it's looking more and more like that was a fluke). Besides them, other albums this year I was disappointed in included efforts by Muse, Squackett, Ian Anderson and Neil Young. And in spite of the praise for "Clockwork Angels", I was never a Rush fan so I'm not even trying to hear that one, LOL.

The new Echolyn album (their first in years) is really great. It's not as unique-sounding as earlier albums like "Suffocating The Bloom", but the songwriting itself has improved--there's some killer tunes on there, and they're still in that 10-minute-plus prog length. I couldn't find the album in the stores, so I heard the whole thing on youtube. Anglagard's new one sounds just like their classic stuff ie. "Hybris". I don't know if you're familiar with Big Big Train but their sound has evolved over the years, and nowadays they sound like Trick/Wind-era Genesis with a *very* Collins-ish vocalist, to boot--but also add their own touches like violin and horns to the mix. This new album is one of their finest. Guillemots, interestingly, was a band I heard at a Starbucks a few months ago and was intrigued enough to ask at the counter. They're a bit like Belle And Sebastian, but have their own sound as well. Great stuff.

Fiona's album drags a little in the middle but I've always liked her and the best material on it, I think, counts among her best.

If you really have to, I wouldn't mind your 2012 list being a top twenty. I'll check out Asteroids Galaxy Tour, the name certainly sounds interesting enough!

Posted on Nov 16, 2012, 11:47:27 AM PST
E. Dill says:
Of the 20 I reviewed, I'm feeling them this way

Animal Collective
Amadou & Mariam
Abercrombie, John

Asteriods Galaxy Tour (love the female lead voice)
Sun Araw
Alabama Shakes
Apple, Fiona (I want to like this one more....we shall see)

Aesop Rock
All American Rejects
Ian Anderson
Steve Aoki
Audrey Assad
Attack! Attack!

Among others, Alt J - An Awesome Wave

Anglagard (I think I mentioned this one some months ago & maybe even gave a youtube site but then never followed up on it)


ps. Notice how I'm promising a Top Ten for 2012, but must post my searching thru 100's of albums to get there. Let's hope I finish quicker than my "final" 1985 list.

Posted on Nov 16, 2012, 8:07:57 AM PST
E. Dill says:
@Michael Topper:

A shout out to Talk Talk....wait, I did that already.

Another shout out to Sigur Ros. Boring, you say? It's that voice!

My Top Ten for 2012 so far? Wow. You'd think I'd have a pretty good handle on that but I don't. Give me a day or two to think about it. Hell, I never followed up on the 1985 thing (or was it 1984?). As I recall, I'd made a list of 100 other possibilities for my Top 10 for THAT year and I was trying to decide.

Also, I finally finished my 4 year review of the 897 Greatest Albums ever and am now trying to add and subtract from their list and then rearrange it to my own preferences. I realized that I don't even have a clue what my Top 10 or 20 would be. Most people, I suspect, know that without thinking about it much. They've probably lived with it for many years. I used to give Neil Young's "After the Goldrush" as my #1 album but I seldom do it anymore. Even a favorite 897 will be virtually impossible for me.

So, yes, I'll try. And yes, I'll keep it to 10. Of yours, I haven't heard Guillemots, Echolyn and Big Big Train.....thanks for 3 more to add to the mix.

I wonder if that vocalist from Sigur Ros has a slightly more artistic whine than Neil's and that's why I embraced it?


Posted on Nov 13, 2012, 11:19:57 PM PST
@E.Dill: "A great album but I see no reason to compare it's worthiness to either Talk Talk albums. There's room for all three here."

Well, yes...that is, if you happen to like all three.

Some post-rock is better than others; as you note, there's a fair amount of diversity within its ranks. I find a lot of post-rock a crashing bore (Sigur Ros, anyone?), but the stuff that isn't can be *quite* good. Besides Slint, there's Tortoise (although even then, some of their stuff is better than others) and Godspeed! You Black Emperor (my favorite). I listened to Cul-De-Sac back in the 90s but they bored me eventually. A lot of the other bands I'm not too aware of, except maybe Mouse On Mars and Bark Psychosis, I think I've heard bits of both acts.

BTW Dill, I'd be interested in seeing what your "best of 2012 so far" list looks like. I just compiled my top ten for another forum, but I'm sure there's plenty I've missed from this year, that you might be aware of. I'm still catching up from last year! This is what my top ten looks like right now:

1. Tame Impala, "Lonerism"
2. The Smashing Pumpkins, "Oceania"
3. Grizzly Bear, "Shields"
4. Guillemots, "Hello Land!"
5. Frank Ocean, "Channel Orange"
6. Echolyn, "Echolyn"
7. Fiona Apple, "The Idler Wheel..."
8. Spiritualized, "Sweet Heart Sweet Light"
9. Anglagard, "Viljans Oga"
10. Big Big Train, "English Electric (Part One)"

I'm only looking for a top ten list although I know you like making them longer...try to keep it to a top twenty at least, OK? ;)

Posted on Nov 13, 2012, 8:50:32 AM PST
vivazappa says:
Zappa, Bowie and NEIL Young had the biggest changes.

As far as a band goes The Grateful Dead had many. From the trippy early records (Axomoxoma) to folkish (Workingman's Dead) to funky (Shakedown) to mid east sounding (Blues for Allah) to accoustic (Reckoning) to the more straight ahead records (In the Dark, Built to Last) all the live shows which switch up styles on every tune.

Posted on Nov 13, 2012, 8:30:24 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 13, 2012, 8:35:55 AM PST
E. Dill says:
<<@E.Dill: the change from Talk Talk's early material to their later albums is huge, I'll grant. However, I just could never understand the worship for "Spirit Of Eden" or "Laughing Stock". Bits of the albums are arresting, but overall I feel they are both crashing bores. For me, good post-rock didn't really begin until Slint's "Spiderland". >>

@Michael Topper:

Well, at least you got the genre right. I lazily referred to both Talk Talk albums as "progressive" (generically)....what can I say? When I first began the 897 album exercise, Talk Talk's "Laughing Stock" was one of the first albums we reviewed. I remembered them as a new wave/synth band. I listened to LS and was blown away. No crashing bore for me. Typically, when I began to research the band, I discovered that I had a cassette tape of the one before, "Spirit of Eden" but never remembered listening to it. I vowed to get a copy of it on cd but never did. I will now.

I gave both albums a quick listen again. I haven't changed my mind. I haven't changed my mind about Slint's Spiderland either. Over the years, I've mentioned them a few times and been ignored. A great album but I see no reason to compare it's worthiness to either Talk Talk albums. There's room for all three here.

As for the post-rock business, while I find myself often defending genres and others usually mocking them, I decided to get a professional's definition of the term. Here's one:

"Post-Rock is a term popularized by music critic Simon Reynolds. In Reynolds' words, it refers to "using rock instrumentation for non-rock purposes, using guitars as facilitators of timbre and textures rather than riffs and power chords." (I know that Simon wrote a book on "post punk", also.)

A succinct description of the genre's sound is difficult because of the diverse influences bands in the Post-Rock scene employ, but one can generally say that it derives primarily from a mix of Ambient, Space Rock, Experimental Rock, Krautrock, and styles on the "wall-of-sound" end of the Alternative Rock spectrum, such as Shoegaze. Some Post-Rock bands also dabble in Math Rock, Tape Music, Minimalism, and various forms of Jazz, but application of these styles is by no means uniform."

So, in keeping with my penchant for lists, knowing full well that I may be a defender of the use of genres but I'm a bit loosey goosey about them (hardly EVER having a clear sense of what group or album was the most important first album of that style....let alone the first that I actually heard and when I heard it):

Talk Talk, Bark Psychosis, Slint, Cul De Sac, Labradford, Tortoise, Gastr del Sol, Dirty Three, Laika, Mouse on Mars, Cerberus Shoal, The For Carnation, Rachel's, Swans, Roy Montgomery, Mogwai, Trans Am, Sigur Ros, American Analog Set, Godspeed You Black Emperor, Windy & Carl, Pan American, Jessica Bailiff, Aereogramme, Friends of Dean Martinez, Arab Strap, Matmos, Explosions in the Sky, Species Being, Low, Man or Astro-Man, A Silver Mt. Zion, Do Make Say Think, Aloha, Fontanelle, Broken Social Scene, Angels of Light, Agalloch, mum, Mono, The Album Leaf, Japancakes, This Will Destroy You, etc. (I have stuff by all of these "post-something or others". I particularly like Dirty Three, The For Carnation, Swans, Sigur Ros, Low, A Silver Mt. Zion)


Posted on Nov 12, 2012, 10:33:18 PM PST
@E.Dill: the change from Talk Talk's early material to their later albums is huge, I'll grant. However, I just could never understand the worship for "Spirit Of Eden" or "Laughing Stock". Bits of the albums are arresting, but overall I feel they are both crashing bores. For me, good post-rock didn't really begin until Slint's "Spiderland".
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Pop forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Pop forum
Participants:  12
Total posts:  33
Initial post:  Nov 4, 2012
Latest post:  Feb 23, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.