Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.
I would say this song very much is a good example of promoting the compositional intricacy, and care that most mainstream rock is lacking. It's melodic, percussively interesting. Has moments of damn good coordination between instruments. A very unique aesthetic in terms of usage of carnival/cartoon tones(not many things in the 1970s were doing). Gradual progression. Unique structural elements. Nearly every instrument played masterfully. Apart from the vocals, gorgeously harmonic. Yet, even in the harmonic moments, no fear in experimenting in polyphonic, and light avant-garde elements. Plus, distinctly rock in tone(even if the jazz elements are very strong).
Just because it isn't 'serious' I don't think the craftsmanship in terms of musicianship really need to be discredited.
Where as Jethro Tull is significantly more simple rhythmically. Significantly less subtle thematically. More needlessly repetitive. Too focused on that catchy hook which makes rock accessible. Great band, worse example of 'progressing' from rock norms.
Cool stuff . . . reminds me of Vander Graaf Generator and other English PR bands! I guess I just have a warm spot for Tull, but they use odd time sigs expertly, are perfectionists and excellent musicians, incorporate classic themes brilliantly, and have a the finest lyrics ever.
What about other mainstream PR bands like Yes and Brand X?
Threaded Mode