Who tipped you off? It's so easy to write multiple album reviews when you have eight legs you know... ;)
http://thebigblogtheory.files.wordpr...0/04/them2.jpg

http://eu.rymimg.com/lk/s/l/b87a6981...11/1725087.jpg
Album Title: Erpland
Artiste: Ozric Tentacles
Nationality: English
Year: 1990
Subgenre: Space Rock, Instrumental
Player(s): Ed Wynne (Guitar, Synths, Production), John Egan (Flute), Roly Wynne (Bass), Paul Hankin (Percussion), Mervin Pepler (Drums), Steve Everett (Sampling) and Marcus Carcus (World music stuffz)
Familiarity: One of my favorite bands of all time.
Favourite track(s): Eternal Wheel, A Gift Of Wings
Why? Atmospherics galore, plus all those sumptuous synth textures and trippy jammin' chord progressions.
Least favourite track(s): They're all good!
Any preconceptions prior to listening, whether good or bad? I've been familiar with these guys pretty much forever, but back when I was first getting into the band I was expecting hard psychedelia or something.
Factoids you'd like to share? They're one of the most successful "indie" bands of all time, having sold millions of records without the help of a major label.
End impression: An absolute classic. All of the Ozrics stuff up until the late 90's is perfect, and this one's a belter for sure.
Comments: Some people say that once you've heard one Ozrics album you've pretty much heard them all, but that's not really fair: nobody sounded like them from the time they were founded in the mid 80's and up until 1995's Become The Other, I would have told you they were the best instrumental jam band of all time. Anyway, there's a rather novel/unique synthesis of sounds and ideas on these early albums. No other outfit has ever had a foot in rave culture, old school psych/space rock stuff and progressive rock simultaneously, and nobody has since either. They've got elements of House, Reggae and even New Age all over their stuff too, but there's still enough blinding axework from Ed Wynne to win over even the grumpiest proghead. Erpland isn't the best Ozrics record (that award goes to Jurassic Shift or maybe their debut Pungent Effulgent) but some of their best cuts are here for sure. Plus all their early album covers...man, they're just awesome.

Rating: 5 Partly because the album is really good, but also because nobody sounded like the Ozrics from '85-'95 either. :wave:

http://eu.rymimg.com/lk/s/l/b87a6981...11/1725087.jpg
Album Title: Erpland
Artist: Ozric Tentacles
Nationality: English
Year: 1990
Subgenre: Neo Hippies
Player(s): Some crusty looking people with instruments
Familiarity: Seen lots of smelly people with dreadlocks wearing their shirts at festivals
Favourite track(s): The title track
Why? It seemed to stand out a bit more from the rest of them
Least favourite track(s): Sunscape
Any preconceptions prior to listening, whether good or bad? I was expecting the kind of alternative / traveller type of band that seemed to be quite popular in the UK in the late 80s early 90s. Kind of like 70s hippy culture meets 80s acid house culture. I was expecting them to sound similar to late 80s Hawkwind when they started experimenting with electronica and found parallels with the acid house movement only with more of a new age / organic vibe.
Factoids you'd like to share? I've been aware of this bands existence since at least 1988/89 but never heard a single song by them.
End impression: Thank God that's over

Comments: I wanted to like this. I was under the impression this was supposed to be a band who mixed & matched all sorts of genres together. The truth is that it's diluted down so much it just becomes bland and uninteresting, basically it's just background muzak.

For one thing this album sounds far too clean, especially the awfully clean sounding guitars that sound like 80s Pink Floyd at their worst. Added to that you have these awful parping synths over pretty much every song. This album says it came out in 1990 but it sounds like it was recorded in 1985. A track like Sunscape actually sounded promising at first with it's acoustic guitar & flute, I thought I'd be in for a nice folky song to really change up the album from what I'd heard up till that point, but then the synths and the electric guitars came in and ruined the song by making it sound like every other song on the album.

There are a couple of songs with some middle eastern flavour to them but they're done in a really uninteresting ways, also I'm pretty sure about 3 songs alone on this album rip off the beginning of Future Days by Can with the flowing water bit, or maybe it was the same song because after a while they all seemed to merge together and I've no idea when one started and one finished.

I refuse to call this space rock because I heard no such thing on this album, also I was expecting a few interesting rhythms given that they apparently have middle eastern and dance music ties, but nothing interesting emerged from that either and the less said about the reggae stuff the better, that was just embarrassing to listen to.

I had high hopes I'd enjoy this, even despite the length. 73 minutes is a struggle for a band I do enjoy, let alone one I've never heard before.
All I can say about this is it sounds like long boring drawn out Dad Rock, which is a description I never thought I would give when I approached it. I wouldn't recommend this album to someone going to a rave or a rock festival, I'd recommend this to my Dad to put alongside his Chris Rea & Mark Knopfler albums.

I mentioned the word 'Organic' when I said what I thought this album would sound like, this album sounds about as organic as a tupperwear lunch box.

Rating: 0.5

You either like the sound of the synths or you don't. From my perspective, they work brilliantly in the context of their overall sound. That's going to determine the ratings of anyone else who reviews this too. :p:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...0px-OT-Erp.jpg
Album title: Erpland
Artiste: Ozric Tentacles
Nationality: British
Year: 1990
Subgenre: Space/Psychedelic Rock
Player(s): Ed Wynne (Guitars, Synth), Roly Wynne (Bass), Paul Hankin (Percussion), Mervin Pepler (Drums), John Egan (Flute, Voice), Joie Hinton (Synth) (There are some others but these are the main players)
Familiarity: None at all; I've heard of them but never heard any oftheir music. To be honest I thought they were African or Danish or Swiss or something!
Favourite track(s): Maybe “Eternal wheel”. “Crackerblocks” is good too.
Why? Because it showed me from the off that I would probably enjoy this album. And I did. “Crackerblocks” reminds me of Vangelis at his most restrained, also elements of mid-80s Peter Gabriel .
Least favourite track(s): “Iscence”
Why? I just don't like reggae that much and this has reggae stamped all over it. It's not a bad track by any means, but compared to the rest here it's easily for me the weakest.
Any preconceptions prior to listening, whether good or bad? No.
Factoids you'd like to share? Not me, but does anyone know what “Erpland” means? :whythis:
End impression: Excellent instrumental prog, kept me interested all the way through. Though whether I'd listen to another twenty albums like this I couldn't say.
Comments: I knew of Ozric Tentacles, but only by name. Still, Ant vouched for them so that was a plus. From the opener I liked this; the sort of hypnotic beat and the soft keyboards, then the pulsing bass comes in before the guitar riffs all over the place. I would agree with Urban on one point: much of this does tend to blend together. I don't know that it's that it sounds all the same; it's more for me something I struggle with when listening to instrumental albums. Unless there are tracks that are very, very different it does all tend to fade together and I often find it hard to differentiate between tracks. That said, what I hear is all good, so I certainly don't agree with Urban's assessment of the album.

I like the elements of New Age and also the Arabic influences on some of the tracks, especially “Mysticum Arabicola” and yes, I even like the flutes! See, flutes are fine once an album isn't based entirely around them, Ian Anderson! I can take flutes in small doses, and that's what we get here. Lot of little ethnic sounds too which is nice and gives the album a sense of mystery and exoticism. Is there some jazz fusion in there too? Have to say, I don't hear all that many “parping synths”, but then, if you listen to a prog album in a club dedicated to prog, you're more than likely to hear such an instrument on most if not all albums chosen. There's certainly not as much as there would be on, say, a Geoff Downes solo or ELP album. Lots of geetar to keep it interesting, nice organ too.

But if have to sound a note of disappointment, it's what I'm going to call the Hum Factor. In other words, is there anything on this album that makes me want to hum or sing it later on? Answer is no: this is my third listen to “Erpland” and not only do I not want to hum any of the tracks, i don't think I could if I wanted to. It's not a big deal, but I find an album scores better with me if the Hum Factor is high. For this, I'd only award a Hum Factor of about 2, where 10 would the highest I could rate it. Normally even on an instrumental album I can find a tune, a melody I like, remember and might hum, but nothing stands out to me here. But I do like this album and would probably listen to more. There would be a whole stack of other albums I'd queue up first, though.


Rating: Solid 4.0

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...0px-OT-Erp.jpg
Album title: Erpland
Artiste: Ozric Tentacles
Nationality: British
Year: 1990
Subgenre: Space/Psychedelic Rock
Player(s): Ed Wynne (Guitars, Synth), Roly Wynne (Bass), Paul Hankin (Percussion), Mervin Pepler (Drums), John Egan (Flute, Voice), Joie Hinton (Synth) (There are some others but these are the main players)
Familiarity: Knew the name simply because it sounded interesting, apart from that nothing at all.
Favourite track(s): Nothing overly excited me but I remember I enjoyed "Crackerblocks".
Why? "Crackerblooks" was nicely paced and quite soothing (despite the fact I don't listen to an album to be soothed)
Least favourite track(s):“Iscence” and "Erpland"
Why? "Iscence" too reggae orientated and "Erpland" just seemed too straightforward and uninspiring.
Any preconceptions prior to listening, whether good or bad? None.
Factoids you'd like to share? None this time.
End impression: I'm still undecided over what I feel about 'New Age' material and this album hasn't helped me decide either. The album as a whole is a rich listen of sounds but for me that's about it.
Comments: I know this sounds dense and close minded, but even today I find it hard to get into an instrumental album and this one was no different and considering it ran for 70 plus mins didn't much help either. Also when I think instrumental I think film soundtrack, which doesn't help either. As already stated by Urban I also found the album very clean (not a negative for me) but I wasn't expecting it to be like so. Also agree that all the so-called musical styles had seemingly been put through a blender and the individuality of the musical styles sucked out, to leave a modern new age hippy type album (squeaky clean hippies of course:)). On the album I hear Vangelis, Jean-Michel Jarre, Tangerine Dream and Gong influences amongst many others and will agree that the guitars are pretty intense at times and probably the best thing about the album. Of the musical styles, I always dig anything that has Middle Eastern tinges but the reggae didn't do anything for me, in fact it never does unless Joe Strummer is singing it. The album should also have been edited and cut to around 40 odd minutes, maybe then I would've given it a higher score.

Would I want to listen to this album again? Not anytime soon but perhaps one day, because I'm sure this and the band's discography probably needs multiple listens to really grasp what's on offer here.

Rating: Sleek and clean but hardly exciting 3.0

Another interestingly polarising album, if not so much as the last one.
Urban, can you let me know if you intend to be a Standard or Associate Member? Standard have their votes counted but are expected to vote on every album picked, Associates don't have to but their votes are not reckoned into the final tally.

Yes, I know you're in the company of nerds. And proud of it, we are...
:)

I'm trudging along with this album, if I write a review, does my rating count?

Every rating should count. As it is done of average scores and doesn't affect their overall score regardless whether 2 people or 10 people vote.

Interesting reviews so far. Like I mentioned, Jurassic Shift probably would have been the ideal draw if we were going to do an Ozrics record (its way leaner than Erpland too), but I'm glad to see something other than complete hatred for their overall sonic approach. :hphones:

That's not actually true. Under the new rules (which have not yet been ratified by the Troika! Come on guys: do you agree?) only the votes from Standard and Core members would count. This is to allow those who --- like, it would seem, Neapolitan --- only want to review every other album, to still join in but because they would not be as it were "taking the club that seriously", participating fully, their votes would not count in the final rating.

So essentially, Nea, if you want your votes to count then you have to become a Standard Member, which brings with it the responsibility of reviewing ALL albums --- whether you like them or not --- but with a longer timescale allowed (suggesting two weeks). If not, you become an Associate Member and can review, or not, whenever and how much or as little as you like, but your ratings will not be counted.

I`ve just noticed you`re discussing this album, so I`d like to throw in my ten cents if that`s ok:-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...0px-OT-Erp.jpg
Album title: Erpland
Artiste: Ozric Tentacles

Familiarity: Mrd00d or Doatar recommended this album a couple of years back, and I`ve been listening to it off and on since then.
Favourite track: Being the first track, everything sounds fresh and promising on Eternal Wheel, so that`s the one I enjoy the most. As has been mentioned, the tracks rather run together and I haven`t paid enough attention to pick another fave.
Least favourite track: Mysticum Arabicola sounds very out of place to me and gave me the impression that, having exhausted their own genre for the moment, the Ozrics thought they`d play at, or rob, someone else`s genre. That kind of dilettante approach often spells disaster imo, as it does here with Iscence as well.
End impression: In contrast to TH`s view, I feel that being an instrumental album is a major plus, which is what drew me to the album in the first place. My theory is that if you`re not going to sustain interest with the fall-back option of lyrics, your playing has to be that much better, and I think Erpland meets that challenge; all the tracks have something interesting going on.
Urban mentioned how clean the sound is - not a big obstacle for me, but he did make me aware that the clean contributes to the dated feel of this album. Likewise, the guitar and synths have a slight "done before" quality about them, but that doesn`t necessarily mean "done better"; I really loved the way the mellow of the synths complimented the bite of the guitars.
Would I want to listen to this album again? Yes absolutely, because, despite the above, I`ve never managed to play this album from start to finish yet. It slowly wears me down and I hit the off button before the end. Before they gave us such a value-for-money seventy-minutes worth, I think the band should`ve considered that ancient bit of advice for show-biz performers, "Always leave them wanting more". This album always makes me feel that I`ve over eaten musically.

Rating: Is it out of 5? I`d give this album a 4 - and will be following up on Anteater`s recommendation of Jurassic Shift. Sounds like it might be a lighter meal: thanks for the tip!

EDIT: I see from the last post that you`re running a pretty tight ship here, TH ! Just to let you know that I`m only here in passing, tbh - not even sure if I`d qualify for Associate membership!

It looks like Comrade Stalin has spoken.

This is the rating criteria:

Also a universal rating out of say 5, For example could be:

5.0- Masterpiece
4.5- Classic
4.0- Great
3.5- Good
3.0- Decent
2.5- Weak
2.0- Poor
1.5- Crap
1.0- Dud

^ Thanks, Unknown Soldier ! I realized after clicking "Submit Post" that I was making the same points that you`d already made about the length and styles on Erpland. I also ditto your enthusiasm for Joe Strummer - I just love those solo albums of his!

Welcome Lisna! Nice to have you here, if only in passing. :thumb:
US, I'm not trying to dictate to anyone but if the last week proved anything it's that we need a fistful of reasonably dedicated members here to make sure the albums are all reviewed and properly rated. I know we're all just having fun but we should have serious fun: if we want to do this correctly and not have it disintegrate due to lack of interest we need the rules to change.

Anyone is of course always welcome (Hi Lisnaholic!) :wave: but I would like to know that there are some people we can depend on to review the albums no matter whether they like them or not. There have been a few here I have not enjoyed but I've still given it my best, and take pride in making sure I never miss a review (unless it's unavoidable). If only one or two of us does reviews this club will quickly fall apart, and I think at the moment it's doing ok so I'd hate to see it fail.

There's no point in having, say, ten people review an album one week, which then gets a high score, and the next only four do it. That skews the result. So we need to only be counting the ratings of those who we know will be reasonably certain to keep reviewing and who we can rely on. Then we know that, for instance, each album will have at least six members reviewing it, and the averages shouldn't vary too much.

Does that make sense?

Oh also, Lis: I do like instrumental albums. I just find that they need to be quite good ("Oxygene", "Oceanic", "SKY 2" etc) to keep my attention, as generally I tend to listen more to lyrics. I am of course a big classical fan so it's not that I don't like instrumental albums --- I've reviewed one or two in my journals, including a classical one --- but they need to be very good indeed. This I found was good, but not very good.

Right then: Sunday has rolled around again (almost Monday now) so here's next week's spin. It comes out as number 8
which gives us
http://eu.rymimg.com/lk/s/l/50700843...e1/1963210.jpg
Gentle Giant --- Gentle Giant

Well this is interesting. I've heard a lot of prog fans rave about these guys but never heard any of their music.

So, reviews by this time next week please guys.

I asked for membership here last summer and haven't posted here since. TBH I think about it from time to time but generally I tend to have difficulty writing in a scripted, template format. And I won't be doing so today. But the topic is Gentle Giant, and I could write an encyclopedia on this topic (if it wasn't so difficult for me to type). So I will post here now.

My first reaction to this when Neapolitan linked me to the above post last night in plug was "That's the wrong Giant album". Not that their first album is a poor album by any stretch, on the contrary, had they never released an album from 1972 on I would think of them as a fine second tier progressive rock band. It's just that what they released between 1972-1976 IMO places Giant in the same discussion as the Tull-Yes-ELP-Genesis prog rock icons of the 1970's.

Since the topic of this discussion is the eponymous first album, I will review it as I see it. It displays the brilliance of arrangement, the multi-instrumentality that none of the other prog behemoths of the era could hope to attain, and the layered vocal style that would become their trademark, but it does lack the cohesion of that form that they so brilliantly honed through the pinnacle of their career. They even discuss this on their last great album (before money-driven record executives forced them to become more "pop", which produced two IMO terrible albums and one, their final album, which to my ears succeeded in melding the trademark Giant sound in a more commercially viable song structure, even though to a man the members find Civilian their worst album, I disagree, I think it's pretty good and do play it from time to time, but I digress...). From the title song of the Interview album:

"What can we tell you?
At the beginning had no direction,
Any other way
After the fourth one, realization,
Finding our road, the same as if today"

(I disagree with one element of that lyric, I think Giant truly found their legs on the third album, Three Friends, which I reviewed here)

The opening track is "Giant". We start with Kerry Minnear playing a Hammond style organ, softly leading into the full band. This is a perfect example of what I've been saying about the rudimentary Giant sound, the elements in place but not yet fully realized in the cohesive form that would follow. I like it for what it is but knowing what was ahead it comes off as comparatively ham-fisted. I don't mean that as a knock, they just hadn't fully crafted their arrangements yet.

IMO the best song off their first album, and one of the only if not *the* only song from this initial offering that was performed live throughout their career is the ballad "Funny Ways". And when I say performed live I mean faithfully, as laid down in these grooves (I have this album on vinyl and I'm listening to the transfer as I type here). This song is the one flawless track off this first album IMO.

Next is "Alucard". Again, the prototypical Giant form is apparent, the unique Giant layered vocal style makes it's first appearance on this track. The biggest problem for me with "Alucard" is that there is a kind of annoying dissonance to parts of the song that keeps me from really enjoying it. Dissonance would become a Giant trademark on future albums, songs like "Knots" and "Design" would make absolutely brilliant use of it, but again here it's not fully developed.

"Isn't It Quiet And Cold" might've found it's best fit on 1973's "In A Glass House". I really like the use of violin, especially the pizzicato sections. Their first featured use of percussive melodic instrumentation such as xylophone and glockenspiel appear in this track.

"Nothing At All" would be in the level of "Funny Ways" on this album were it not for the decision to place an extended drum solo ala "Moby Dick" as an extremely clumsy bridge section. It just doesn't work. I'd love a chance to edit that section out. What were they thinking?

(a quick sidebar on drummers. Martin Smith, who sadly passed in 1997, is the man behind the skins on the first two albums, Malcolm Mortimore takes over on the watershed third album, and from the fourth album forward the drummer was John Weathers, an outstanding musician but maybe the ugliest man in music history)

The next track is "Why Not". This is again decent enough but suffers from the same under-developed nature as most of this first record. It has a lovely mid-section and the first use of recorders (this type of recorder) that would become a mainstay of future albums and in particular future tours, I was fortunate enough to catch two of those tours (1972 and 1976). Then they unfortunalely meld into a blues outro that just doesn't fit at all

The album concludes with "The Queen", their rendition of "God Save The Queen". This was shortly after Woodstock and the famous Hendrix rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner", so I guess this is Giant doing some kind of tribute to that. TBH they should've left this track on the cutting room floor.

"Gentle Giant" is not where I would recommend starting for someone new to this great prog rock band, but I would recommend it over anything from 1977's "The Missing Piece" or especially 1979's "Giant For A Day". Start with "Three Friends" (review linked to earlier in this review), then dig into all the masterpieces that followed, "Octopus", "In A Glass House", and "The Power And The Glory". Then just below those but still brilliant, "Free Hand" and "Interview" (which does contain one very skippable track but is otherwise outstanding). They also released one of the best (and definitely least overdubbed) live albums ever made in "Playing The Fool". There have since been many DVD's released, I have "Giant On The Box" and it's amazing.

Yeah, but did you like it or not? :rofl:

Seriously, great review Paul and it's a pity you're not going to be joining. My own review will be up soon but just to confirm: all the albums here are taken from a list of 217 progressive rock albums one person compiled as his best, so whether it's their best or not this is the GG album we go with. We had to do that in order to bring some needed structure to the club and to have a source for the albums we wanted to review. It's a little restrictive but interesting in that we can't just all choose our favourite albums.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...giantcover.jpg
Album title: Gentle Giant
Artiste: Gentle Giant
Nationality: British
Year: 1970
Subgenre: None
Player(s): Gary Green (Lead Guitar), Kerry Minnear (Keys), Derek Shulman (Lead voclas), Martin Shulman (Brass and woodwinds), Ray Shulman (Bass, Guitars, Violin), Martin Smith (Percussion)
Familiarity: Everyone knows of Gentle Giant: they're considered prog royalty and are mentioned in the same breath as (ahem) giants like Yes, ELP, Camel and Genesis, though they seem not to have attained the commercial success of at least two of those bands. I had, however, never heard any of their music up to now.
Favourite track(s): “Isn't it quiet and cold”
Why? It's different and fun
Least favourite track(s): “The Queen”
Why? Uh, guess...
Any preconceptions prior to listening, whether good or bad? I must admit there was some anticipation, sort of like listening to Yes or Genesis for the first time. I was expecting great things.
Factoids you'd like to share?
End impression: Took longer than I thought to grow on me. Even at the end of the eighth or ninth listen, I'm still not blown away though I can see why they deserve their place among the pantheon of prog's heroes.
Comments: Well I was expecting to be seriously impressed but the first track did not do it for me. It's more based around what I like to call “Harsh prog”, that is, jarring rhythms and sharp brass, sharp stabbed keyboard chords; sort of the kind of muisc that made it such a chore for me to get into Spock's Beard. The song settled down near the end which made it more palatable to me. The second was better, more relaxed but “Alucard” (groan!) set things more or less back to the way the opener went, though you can see where Queen got their group vocal ideas...

I did however like the sort of twenties feel of “Isn't it quiet and cold”? The violins are nice and as Paul said, the pizzicato really fits in with the somewhat tripping percussion and the jaunty guitar. “Nothing at all” reminds me of Kansas, very pastoral in feel and again those vocal harmonies make the song. It's a long one but doesn't seem so. It does however contain a quite silly drum solo incorporating some classical melody on the piano, though not quite. As Paul pointed out, this did not work and was a really bad idea. A real pity, as it splits the track up into two parts, the first which is good and the second which is frankly embarrassingly bad. ”Why not” is again a return to the “Harsh Prog” of the opener and as for “The queen”? Well I thought when I saw its running time that it would be a nice little instrumental, possibly medieval in style, but to find out it's basically a reworking of “God save the Queen”, well as an Irishman it just annoys me and seems pointlessly nationalistic, a waste of a track on an album that only contains seven in all.

Generally, fairly disappointed, considering these guys are so highly regarded in prog circles.

Rating: 3.5 to my own surprise and chagrin...

... and now for a word from our sponsor...

Just a quick question to thrown in here guys, unrelated to the GG album: I see Asia have a new album out, but considering how awful "XXX" was, I wondered if it's even worth getting. Has anyone listened to it yet?

[QUOTE=Trollheart;1432424]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...giantcover.jpg

Alright, I know I'm note part of the "Club" but thought I would go ahead and give this one a listen and I'm sure glad I did.

Favourite track(s): “Why Not”
Why?: "why not" Hah! Because it rocks. I like how it starts out sounding like the doors. Has a nice groove. Vocals sound like Steve Winwood. Great Hammond organ sound. Unlike Paul, this seemed the strongest track to me and I would like to hear more like this.

Other thoughts:
Giant: Nice changes. Really liked the middle section where the bass and guitar played unison lines while the keyboard was soloing.
Funny ways: Very nice harmonies.
Alucard: Really? Dracula spelled backwards? I expected scary music but it was more evil monster boogie than anything. Not hugely impressed with this one.
Isn't it quiet and cold: A little too Baroque for me but some nice stuff in it.
Nothing at all: Again, I like the rocking sound. Drum solos are never my thing but this was not bad as the piano came in to change things up.

Least favourite track(s): “The Queen”
Why?: Totally sounds like they needed a filler song to get the album done.

Any preconceptions prior to listening, whether good or bad?: I had no idea what to expect but was very pleasantly surprised. I listened and formed my opinions prior to seeing Paul weigh in. Now hearing that there are better albums really makes me want to hear more. They are clearly monster musicians and I like all the different textures they bring. I prefer when they rock a bit more so would like to find out what albums have more of that but at the end of the day I will be coming back to this one as I really enjoyed it. Always amazed when I find out about a band like this, makes me wonder how the hell I never heard about them before.

Rating: 3.8

Comments: Can't wait to hear more from this band.

Edit: Have not heard the new Asia, nor do I plan to even try. Not interested even kind of. Does it have Steve Howe? I do love Steve Howe...

No, Steve Howe retired from Asia in 2013. One more reason not to listen to it I guess.

Nice review of Gentle Giant Moss: glad it worked for you and gave you a new band to check out. Sometimes that happens here and when it does it's all good.

Feel free to join in on more reviews if and when you like.

It's better than XXX, but not nearly as good as any of the Payne era records. I'm starting to think Downes should just go hook up with the other Asia and leave Wetton to drown in mediocrity all by his lonesome self. :D

Well, again, this album is not by any means WHY they are so highly regarded.

It's like forming an opinion on the Beatles based on a listen to "Please Please Me".

Yeah, accepted. But you could listen to just about any Genesis album and see why they're the giants they are (except Abacab of course: ZING! Neapolitan!) ;) or maybe Yes (not that familiar with them) or Rush, so I think that unless this album is VERY atypical of them then it should hold true that no matter what album you hear you should "get it".

Of course, we are constrained in that we're using one guy's personal favourites list, but still...

Well it would really have to be, wouldn't it? Couldn't be worse! :rofl: I suppose I'll get it, being the Asia fan I am, but I expect to be let down again, for the first time since I bought their second album. You're probably right about Wetton: bring back Payne! Have you heard "Raised in captivity", Wetton's solo album? It's pretty naff. Says it all maybe.

Does that rule about Genesis even apply to their 1969 debut? I like GG's debut a lot, but I'm going to have to agree with the rest and tell you that it doesn't have much in common with any of their other recordings, including the weird ones like 1971's Acquiring The Taste or the "classics" like Octopus, The Power & The Glory, etc.

I'll have my review posted before the day's out.

Yeah good point. I just wish this guy had selected what are agreed as the best of a band rather than his own personal favourites; seems we may be missing out a little here.

I'm guessing the guy is a big GG fan, so expect a lot more of their albums.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...giantcover.jpg
Album title: Gentle Giant
Artiste: Gentle Giant
Nationality: British
Year: 1970
Subgenre: Progressive Rock
Player(s): Gary Green (Lead Guitar), Kerry Minnear (Keys), Derek Shulman (Lead vocals), Martin Shulman (Brass and woodwinds), Ray Shulman (Bass, Guitars, Violin), Martin Smith (Percussion)
Familiarity: One of the most revered prog bands form prog's golden era and know most of their discography and am aware that the debut album is a bit of exception to a lot of their discography.
Favourite track(s): “Why Not?” "Nothing at All"
Why? "Why Not?" Really dig its bluesy guitar and "Nothing at All" due to its dreamy feel (Simon & Garfunkel) and then it gets much heavier before its heavy drum solo and I always like long drum solos anyway, and this one is accompanied by some instant piano:finger:
Least favourite track(s): “The Queen”
Why? Oddity really and could've had a better final track.
Any preconceptions prior to listening, whether good or bad? Gentle Giant are one of the more complex prog bands to get your head around and so any listen can be demanding as you try to uncover everything on offer and even the debut is no real exception here.
Factoids you'd like to share? They have the Shulman brothers, no not just two but three of them!
End impression: I like the offbeat feel of the album overall despite not being in love with the whole album. For example a song like "Funny Ways" I really like especially with its crisp vocals, but then in other parts of that song I really don't like it at all due its changes in style.
Comments: This is one of the early progressive rock albums and given the fact that a huge amount of previous prog related albums were more experimental in their offerings than fully focused prog then this is no different really in that respect. Gentle Giant are a prog band that bridge the gap between what was big in the 1960s and what would soon arrive in the 1970s. For example "Why Not?" has some neat bluesy guitar and "Isn't Quiet and Cold" takes its cue from middle era Beatles, and "Nothing at All" emerges into a hard rocking blues inspired track before dropping back to its quiet opening. Overall a mixed but rich debut that gets the thumbs up but doesn't reach the heights of quality found on say the King Crimson debut, where there are some similarities.

Rating: 4.0 and serves a great intro into the world of Gentle Giant

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...giantcover.jpg
Album title: Gentle Giant
Artiste: Gentle Giant
Nationality: British
Year: 1970
Subgenre: Progressive Rock
Player(s): Gary Green (Lead Guitar), Kerry Minnear (Keys), Derek Shulman (Lead Vox), Martin Shulman (Brass and woodwinds), Ray Shulman (Bass, Guitars, Violin), Martin Smith (Percussion)
Familiarity: I have all their top albums, so that has to count for something as proghead.
Favourite track(s): 'Funny Ways' and 'Nothing At All"
Why? 'Nothing At All' was the song that got me into progressive rock (as I talked about on my journal) and 'Funny Ways' is an interesting,rhythmically propulsive song that hints at just how out-of-the-box the Shulman brothers and co. would become on later records.
Least favourite track(s): “The Queen”
Why? See everyone else's comments. Seems unnecessary.
Any preconceptions prior to listening, whether good or bad?
None really, and unless you were aware at just how unique these guys were before you heard their music as far as reputation goes, I don't see how anyone would be prepared for them.
Factoids you'd like to share? Derek Shulman (the lead singer and eldest Shulman brother) went on to have a GIGANTIC career as a record executive from the 80's onwards after GG's disbanding, signing or overseeing the signing of a lot of superstar bands on several labels, including Dream Theater, Pantera...hell, even Nickelback and Bon Jovi!
End impression: 1969-1970 was a watershed year for the-then nascent progressive movement, and this album is right up there with anything Yes or King Crimson were doing at the time as far as standing out from the crowd goes.
Comments: A promising beginning from a band who would go on to become one of the most distinctive and forward-thinking groups to ever exist in progressive rock's golden decade. Its not a perfect record by any means, and besides 'Nothing At All' I'm not in love with any of the songs here, but this was 1970 and a debut album: nobody besides King Crimson completely knocked it out of the park their first go-around, not even Yes or Genesis. These guys were on to something special, and you can just hear the creative electricity sizzle from note to note here. The true depths of this potential would not start revealing itself until '71's Acquiring The Taste, but the signs of greatness are heir apparent.

Rating: 3.5 Not the first album I'd recommend to people for GG, but its got some great moments.

Well as regards Genesis, I assume you would agree with me that Nursery Cryme was a significant leap forward, and Foxtrot yet another leap to a plateau that they maintained through the remainder of the Gabriel era into the early Collins era. This is kinda like that. The first GG album has moments but they had a lot of development in front of them. I'm just saying not to give up on Giant until you've heard their fully developed music.

If you haven't done so yet, Trollheart, I encourage you to read my review of Three Friends that I linked to in my review on this thread. That was the beginning of their greatness

I understand the premise of this thread demands reviewing the listed albums.

Well this is frustrating! Time to choose a new album so I spin and I get .. wait for it ...
1!
And think hell yeah! Top of the list!
Problem is, he hasn't decided what his alltime greatest favourite bestest most classic prog album ever is yet! So no number one! GAAAHHH!

So after a nice cup of tea and a Snack wafer I hit spin again. This time I get
183

But
It's not there either! God-damn it! Why do people publish unfinished lists??? :banghead:

Third time lucky then...
211
For one sickening moment I thought we had done that already but no. Here it is...
http://eu.rymimg.com/lk/s/l/6e41155c...60/3522590.jpg
Timeless --- The Watch

Never heard of them. Could be interesting. A 2011 album so may be great, may be crap. Anyway as usual all reviews in for counting by Sunday for all Core Members and I guess Sunday week for Standard Members.

Edit: Not on Spotify or Grooveshark, but I think YouTube may have it...

By the way, can anyone except Ant and US contact me and let me know how you want your membership? You want fries with that? ;)

Until I hear otherwise, everyone other than Neapolitan, Moss and Paul Smeenus are going in as Standard. If you want to change up or down let me know, but until then anyone who's put in as a Standard Member but fails to fulfill the criteria, ie review every album in the time allotted will be notified by PM that they are going to be downgraded to Associate Membership. They can then appeal this to myself, Anteater or Unknown Soldier, if they care.

http://www.thewatch.it/test/wp-conte...1/timeless.jpg
Album title: Timeless
Artiste: The Watch
Nationality: Italian
Year: 1970, I mean 2011!
Subgenre: RPI, but more like Genesis clones
Player(s): Simone Rossetti (vocals, flute), Marco Fabbri (Drums), Giorgio Gabriel (No, I'm serious!) (Guitars), Valerio De Vittorio (Keyboards), Stefano Castrucci (Bass, Guitars)
Familiarity: Zero, didn't even know they existed outside of a Terry Pratchett novel!
Favourite track(s): “End of the road”
Why? I say favourite but I really mean least hated, and I only choose it because it at least has some sense of originality about it and doesn't sound like a bad Genesis rip-off.
Least favourite track(s): Title I think
Why? Because it's so much a rip off of Genesis's “In the wilderness”. Their audacity in then covering that song could make anyone not familiar with Genesis think that the opener is just an intro to a song they wrote, as in, “In the wilderness” and I think that's very disingenuous.
Any preconceptions prior to listening, whether good or bad? Reading about them it says they play Genesis like music, so I had expected to enjoy this. I was soon to be proven wrong.
Factoids you'd like to share?
End impression: Jesus wept! If I want to listen to Genesis I'll listen to Genesis., not some poor clone ripoff who can't even disguise this as tribute music!
Comments: Having selected this album from the list and never heard of the band I went in search of information. This is what Wiki says: ”Their music is inspired by classic progressive rock style of the 1970s and in particular by the music of Genesis “. Okay so that should be fine, yes? But the moment I hit play I heard Genesis. Not someone playing music LIKE Genesis, but a band playing Genesis. Even the singer emulates Gabriel to an embarrassing degree. Not to mention that this is 1969 Genesis we're talking about, with even a cover from the debut album. So then I thought “Ah! Timleless! It's either a tribute to Genesis or to classic prog rock songs!”

But no, that is not the case at all; it's supposed to be an original album. Fair enough then, but the opening track “The Watch” is nothing more than the main melody from “In the wilderness” (which they later cover, just to rub salt in) with a few embellishments, but they don't call it a cover. Oh no. It's their song. The cover is decent enough and I actually like the version they do, plus they do an okay version of “Stagnation”, but come on: if I want Genesis I listen to Genesis. Big Big Train are Genesis influenced, as are Willowglass, but neither sound EXACTLY like Genesis!

When it gets down to it though, their own music I found well played but too deriviative. The only one that even made me sit up and take notice was “End of the road”, which showed a lot of promise and its own identity. “Exit” is just a reprise of the opener (itself a badly-disguised cover/ripoff/you decide) and the rest just sounded like stuff the Genesis of 1969 might have recorded but not decided to put on the debut album. As for the singer? Why try to sound EXACTLY like Peter Gabriel? Marillion, in their formative years, were always compared to Genesis and did not like it, Fish making his voice as unlike Gabriel's as could be. Nobody tries consciously to emulate the legend, especially if you're also playing exactly the same kind of music, even cover versions for god's sake! Oh yeah, and he plays the flute too. Can you say obvious?

Very very disappointed, and it only took me two listens to decide this album was not worth giving a further chance. These guys need to find their own voice. Maybe on later albums they did. But they've left me wanting to hear no more of their music, which is quite a surprise to me as I was expecting much better. Some of you will probably think I'm being overly harsh on The Watch here, and maybe I am, but the blatant mimicry here, presented as their own music, just makes my blood boil. You can love, admire, respect and try to emulate a band without copying them almost note for note.

Rating: Sorry, can only muster a 2.5 and that's only because the musicianship is good and the singer is competent, also they made we want to dig out my old copy of "From Genesis to Revelation", but the Genesis clone effect and their disingenuity in claiming songs as theirs which are plainly copied from Genesis ones loses them massive points.

The current rankings, up to the last album reviewed. No change at the top but some albums share the second slot, three in fact. Mind you, at the moment only three people are putting in regular reviews so all scores are being divided by three. If we had more contributors, maybe the balance of power (hah!) would change...

In descending order then, so far:

Ian Anderson --- Divinities: Twelve dances with God ---- 3.0
Area --- Arbeit macht frei --- 3.0
Emerson, Lake and Palmer --- Brain salad surgery --- 3.38
Gentle Giant --- Gentle Giant --- 3.66
Genesis --- Seconds out --- 4.0
Marillion --- Sounds that can't be made --- 4.0
Ozric Tentacles --- Erpland --- 4.0
Genesis --- Selling England by the pound --- 5.0

Four days left guys. If anyone needs the album it's on YouTube as I said or if you need a PM hit me.
Thanks
TH

http://www.thewatch.it/test/wp-conte...1/timeless.jpg

Album title: Timeless
Artiste: The Watch
Year: 2011

Familiarity: Never heard of them, wish I never had.
Favourite track(s): The best of the worst? Maybe "Let us now make love?"
Why?: The ridiculous name of the song kicks it a notch above the others.
Least favourite track(s): All of them, seriously. But if I have to choose I'll go with "soaring On".
Why? Sounds like some horrible ELP/Genesis mash up. Horrible harpsichord sounding guitar or keyboard or whatever it was. 0 melody
Any preconceptions prior to listening, whether good or bad? No preconceptions at all other than I thought the album cover looked kind of promising.
End impression: Awful
Comments: I actually didn't even hear the last 3 songs as I could not find them on Youtube but I was ok with that. I think I got enough of a feel for the album. I really disliked the vocals. Seems like they took the worst parts of Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins and combined them somehow. Too much cliche acoustic guitar arpeggios with flute on top. I hate to be too harsh about any band but this is just something I will never revisit and I hope there are no more of their albums on the list. Loved Gentle Giant and this was a disappointing plummet for me. They sound like they are probably decent on their instruments (wanted to end on a positive).

Rating: 2.0 and I'm being generous. Trollheart, you were not overly harsh and I'm surprised you gave it a 2nd spin.
__________________

Thanks Moss. It really is a terrible rip-off effort, isn't it? Timeless? More like clueless!!

Ant, US, where are you guys? Today is the last day for your reviews and I'm putting up the new album later today. Can you let me know if there's a reason you won't be able to do your slot this week, if not can you please post them before the end of today?

Thanks
TH

Been very busy but will put up tonight, so don't put new album up till tomorrow

Okey dokey, will give you a one-day extension. Mind you, you'll only need five minutes to realise how crappy this album is... :rolleyes: