How many of you can name a Dutch rock band without googling?
-
I remember them - they were damn pricey IIRC. Strange take on the active setup as well. Saying that, I never really took to active pickups - they just didn't sound right to me. Ah, the Skyscraper tour - I saw them at Donnington that year. That was the year that two people died at the Guns and Roses set. DLR rocked hard that year and I was pleased that I managed to see him when he was still great. When you saw him did Vai swap his guitar onto Roth for the Panama solo? That was a pretty cool thing when I saw him. And you should definitely get a Jem - trust me, you'll never want to move away.
This space for rent
The SkyScraper tour indeed :) ... you know your stuff, I think DLR had the guitar for the Panama solo, I can't be sure tho, as my head was shaking at full tilt because they where playing a Van Halen track! Haha! I'll maybe have a look into the Jems again, maybe bend your ear if I'm close to a purchase? I'm not up on the Ibanez's range these days. The FrankenStrat is the my only guitar (these days) with active pups, and I haven't plugged it in too many years. Back in the day it was allot more natural sounding than any of the EMG equipped guitars I had. It has a killer midrange boot/cut on board preamp, twanging telecaster to screaming filth in the turn of a dial ... I really should fire it up for old time sake. I'm more into home recording these days, and the actives should (in theory) come into their own in that environment.
-
You mean Heideroosjes
In Word you can only store 2 bytes. That is why I use Writer.
-
-
In my defence I have to say, the only Dutch rock band I know is Golden Earring. But I'm old enough to remember "Caught in the act" from the time I was a teenager...not that I listened to that kind of music :zzz:
U. G. Leander wrote:
not that I listened to that kind of music
Man point returned. ;)
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Maybe something stung you
In Word you can only store 2 bytes. That is why I use Writer.
-
:laugh: ... in addition to you having to ignore anything you've previously learned about music structure and tonality! I could never (and still can't) get my head around how their tunes are structured, as you said, especially their time signatures. The only way I could even attempt to muddle through the guitar parts was to learn the separate parts, and string them together as a collection of riffs. I'm listening to Moving Waves just now, shocked at how much it sounds like later period Floyd, they must have been listening to this before they made Wish You Where Here.
-
Without googling and cogitating I can name two.
-
hypermellow wrote:
I'm listening to Moving Waves just now, shocked at how much it sounds like later period Floyd, they must have been listening to this before they made Wish You Where Here.
You cannot be serious?
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
I'm afraid I am serious :omg: ;P I can draw a few parallels with the Floyd from the Moving Waves album, elements from Dark Side to Division Bell. I do think the Floyd were probably listening to Focus, too many similarities song/album structure, and there's a few Akkerman traits that I can hear in Gilmours playing.
-
I'm afraid I am serious :omg: ;P I can draw a few parallels with the Floyd from the Moving Waves album, elements from Dark Side to Division Bell. I do think the Floyd were probably listening to Focus, too many similarities song/album structure, and there's a few Akkerman traits that I can hear in Gilmours playing.
The only problem with this marvellous theory (apart from the fact that I hear absolutely nothing of these alleged comparisons in the music at all) is that neither Gilmour nor any member of the band at the time has so much as mentioned Akkerman or Focus in the vast number of interviews they have given on the subject of their musical educations, inspirations, development or personal taste. Frankly the notion that Gilmour's quintessentially English, dark, brooding, classical, soaring style is in any way be influenced by the thoroughly continental, cool dude, punny, jamming, jazz pastiche style of Focus, especially on the Moving Waves album (Hocus, Pocus, for crying out loud!) makes no sense at all! Floyd and Focus are poles apart on the 'prog rock' spectrum. Camel I could believe, Floyd is just laughable.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
-
The only problem with this marvellous theory (apart from the fact that I hear absolutely nothing of these alleged comparisons in the music at all) is that neither Gilmour nor any member of the band at the time has so much as mentioned Akkerman or Focus in the vast number of interviews they have given on the subject of their musical educations, inspirations, development or personal taste. Frankly the notion that Gilmour's quintessentially English, dark, brooding, classical, soaring style is in any way be influenced by the thoroughly continental, cool dude, punny, jamming, jazz pastiche style of Focus, especially on the Moving Waves album (Hocus, Pocus, for crying out loud!) makes no sense at all! Floyd and Focus are poles apart on the 'prog rock' spectrum. Camel I could believe, Floyd is just laughable.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
9082365 wrote:
apart from the fact that I hear absolutely nothing of these alleged comparisons in the music at all
... and here lies that part that's missed on you. There is no marvellous theory, or a problem with something that doesn't exist. Music is subjective, and I simply stated an observation, my observation. I'm not surprised you unable to hear the similarities between the 2, if your trying to hear it in a track like Hocus Pocus. Maybe try listening to something like Eruption, plenty of soaring guitar there, some of it almost like the Floyds money (esp around 9:20). Strange how 2 people can listen to the same pieces of music, and find the other opinion laughable is it? ... maybe that's the subjective part of Music eh?
-
9082365 wrote:
apart from the fact that I hear absolutely nothing of these alleged comparisons in the music at all
... and here lies that part that's missed on you. There is no marvellous theory, or a problem with something that doesn't exist. Music is subjective, and I simply stated an observation, my observation. I'm not surprised you unable to hear the similarities between the 2, if your trying to hear it in a track like Hocus Pocus. Maybe try listening to something like Eruption, plenty of soaring guitar there, some of it almost like the Floyds money (esp around 9:20). Strange how 2 people can listen to the same pieces of music, and find the other opinion laughable is it? ... maybe that's the subjective part of Music eh?
There is a considerable difference between saying ... I think there are some parts of this record sound a bit like Dave Gilmour ... and ... Dave Gilmour obviously listened to this record and used it as a source for his own later work. In your original comments it was clearly the second which you were saying and it is that which is objectively laughable, your attempt to now pretend that you were only saying the first notwithstanding. The distinctive Gilmour style in evidence on the recordings you name is also evident on recordings which predate Focus's very existence so if you want to suggest that there is influence it can only be the other way round, Akkerman producing a (pale) imitation of an already matured Gilmour. That I could believe (well, with a little actual evidence). Your weird and wonderful theory just doesn't add up historically. Subjectivity be damned!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
-
There is a considerable difference between saying ... I think there are some parts of this record sound a bit like Dave Gilmour ... and ... Dave Gilmour obviously listened to this record and used it as a source for his own later work. In your original comments it was clearly the second which you were saying and it is that which is objectively laughable, your attempt to now pretend that you were only saying the first notwithstanding. The distinctive Gilmour style in evidence on the recordings you name is also evident on recordings which predate Focus's very existence so if you want to suggest that there is influence it can only be the other way round, Akkerman producing a (pale) imitation of an already matured Gilmour. That I could believe (well, with a little actual evidence). Your weird and wonderful theory just doesn't add up historically. Subjectivity be damned!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
9082365 wrote:
Your weird and wonderful theory just doesn't add up historically
:doh: You're still not getting this are you? ... for the 2nd time (see previous reply for the 1st) ... there is no theory, weird nor wonderful.
9082365 wrote:
Dave Gilmour obviously listened to this record and used it as a source for his own later work.
And when did I say this? ... oh yeah, never :-) the closest I said has been:
I'm listening to Moving Waves just now, shocked at how much it sounds like later period Floyd, they must have been listening to this before they made Wish You Where Here.
... and as an opinion, my option I agree.
9082365 wrote:
Akkerman producing a (pale) imitation of an already matured Gilmour
... you think? IMO Gilmour only started having any influence in Floyd around Meddle (... same time as Moving Waves?), and matured (... for me) somewhere around Darkside/WYWH (i.e. mid '70s). I get that you come across as a big Floyd fan (as am I), but I cannot begin to grasp the concept of Akkerman being an imitation (pale or not) of an already matured Gilmour?? ... what were you saying about something not adding up historically? I'm not bashing, or downing on Gilmour in any way, he is an incredible guitarist, one of the very few who are truly 'one offs' and have managed to create an instantly recognisable style & sound (more so than Akkerman). If you have listened to some Focus, and can't hear anything that reminds you of the Floyd, then fair enough - that the subjective part again. Nobody is trying to force you to hear anything, there is no theory - again, just my opinion.
